The Supreme Court has reiterated that merely proving the execution and registration of a Will is not enough where surrounding circumstances create legitimate doubts about its authenticity. Holding that a Will is among the most solemn documents recognised by law, the Court said its propounder must remove every genuine suspicion surrounding its execution before it can be accepted by the court.Allowing an appeal in Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had rejected a Will executed by an illiterate farmer in favour of distant relatives while completely disinheriting his widow. The Court also held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reappreciating findings of fact recorded by the courts below.BackgroundThe dispute arose after Bhambo Devi, the widow of Chhajju Ram, filed a civil suit claiming ownership over her late husband’s agricultural property.According to her, Chhajju Ram died intestate in February 1992 without leaving any children. Since she was his only surviving Class I heir, she claimed that she alone inherited his estate.Her claim was challenged by the defendants, who relied upon a registered Will allegedly executed by Chhajju Ram in November 1974. They submitted that Chhajju had bequeathed his entire movable and immovable property to them because they had cared for him and his wife for several years.Bhambo Devi disputed the very execution of the Will. She alleged that her husband had never executed such a document and asserted that the Will had been obtained through fraud and undue influence. She also questioned why her husband would completely exclude her from inheritance despite their cordial relationship and the fact that they had no children.Trial Court And First Appellate Court Found The Will SuspiciousThe Trial Court carefully examined the document and found several circumstances that cast serious doubt on its authenticity.One of the principal reasons was that the Will completely disinherited the widow while merely stating that she already possessed sufficient jewellery and cash. The Court found this explanation vague because the document contained no particulars regarding the jewellery or money, nor did it make any provision for her future maintenance.The Trial Court also noticed unusual alterations on the reverse side of the registered Will. At several places, the name “Laxmi Kant” had been struck out and replaced with “Chhajju Ram”. None of these alterations had been authenticated by the Sub-Registrar through initials or signatures.The Court observed that such unexplained alterations created a serious doubt about whether the document had actually been presented for registration by Chhajju Ram himself.Another circumstance that troubled the Trial Court was the absence of any convincing reason for executing the Will as early as 1974 when Chhajju remained alive until 1992. The Court also found little evidence to support the defendants’ claim that they had been looking after the deceased for many years.Therefore, holding that these suspicious circumstances remained unexplained, the Trial Court rejected the Will and declared the widow to be the owner of the property.The First Appellate Court independently re-examined the evidence and agreed with these findings. It identified several suspicious features, including the complete exclusion of the widow, the doubtful relationship claimed between the beneficiaries and the testator, the unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement, and the absence of convincing evidence showing that the beneficiaries had actually cared for Chhajju Ram.It therefore affirmed the Trial Court’s decree in favour of the widow.The High Court, however, took a different view in second appeal.It held that the Will had been proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act because one of the attesting witnesses had entered the witness box and proved its execution. The High Court further observed that registration of the Will strengthened its authenticity and that the suspicious circumstances relied upon by the lower courts were insufficient to discard the document.The High Court reversed the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and dismissed the widow’s suit.Aggrieved by this decision, the legal representative of the original plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.Before examining the disputed Will, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of the settled legal principles governing proof of testamentary documents. The Bench reiterated that although a Will must ordinarily be proved by examining an attesting witness under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act, that is only the first stage of the enquiry.The Court explained that whenever surrounding circumstances create genuine suspicion about a Will, the burden on its propounder becomes much heavier. The propounder must not merely establish that the document bears the testator’s signature or thumb impression. It must also satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the testator executed the Will voluntarily, fully understood its contents, and appreciated the nature and effect of the disposition made under it.The Bench observed that suspicious circumstances cannot be exhaustively defined because they vary from case to case. They may arise where a natural heir is unfairly excluded, where the beneficiary plays an active role in preparing the document, where the testator’s mental or physical condition raises doubts, or where the contents of the Will themselves appear unnatural or improbable.Only after every legitimate suspicion is satisfactorily explained can the Court accept the Will as genuine.Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that the Will was surrounded by several suspicious circumstances that remained unexplained even after the defendants led evidence.The Bench first noted that Chhajju Ram was an illiterate agriculturist who could only affix his thumb impression. In such a situation, the Court observed, the burden on the person relying upon the Will becomes particularly heavy because it must be shown that the testator fully understood the contents of the document before executing it.The Court also found the complete exclusion of the widow from inheritance highly unusual.Although a person is legally free to dispose of property through a Will in any manner, the Court observed that where a wife who had lived with and cared for her husband throughout his life is entirely disinherited in favour of persons who are neither close relatives nor natural heirs, the disposition naturally raises questions that require a satisfactory explanation.The reasons recorded in the Will did not inspire confidence.The document stated that the widow already possessed sufficient jewellery and cash and therefore required no share in the estate. However, it contained no particulars about those assets or any arrangement for her future maintenance.Similarly, the beneficiaries claimed that they had been caring for Chhajju Ram and his wife for several years. However, the evidence before the courts showed that Chhajju and his wife lived separately in their own house and that his wife herself had been taking care of him until his death.The Court also noticed that one of the beneficiaries was still a student when the Will was executed, making the explanation that he had long been looking after the testator difficult to accept.Adding to these doubts was the fact that the Will described the beneficiaries as the testator’s nephews. The defendants, however, failed to establish that relationship through convincing evidence.Taken together, these circumstances seriously weakened the explanation offered in support of the Will.The Supreme Court then examined another important aspect of the case, the registration of the Will. The Court clarified that registration by itself cannot validate a Will if the surrounding circumstances create genuine doubts about its execution.The Bench closely examined the original document and found significant alterations on the reverse side, where the registration endorsement had been made. The endorsement initially mentioned “Laxmi Kant” as the person presenting the document for registration. That name had later been struck off and replaced with “Chhajju”. More importantly, none of these corrections carried the initials or authentication of the Sub-Registrar.The Court observed that these unexplained alterations created uncertainty regarding who had actually presented the document before the registering authority.Since the Registration Act requires the registering officer to verify the identity of the person presenting the document and admitting its execution, the unexplained corrections substantially weakened the evidentiary value of the registration. As a result, the defendants could not claim the normal assurance that flows from a properly registered Will.The Supreme Court also found that the High Court had exceeded the limited jurisdiction available to it under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The Bench reiterated that a second appeal can be entertained only when it involves a substantial question of law. Findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on questions of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed merely because another view is possible. Whether a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, whether those circumstances have been satisfactorily explained, and whether the evidence inspires the judicial conscience are all essentially factual issues.In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had independently examined the evidence and reached the same conclusion that the defendants had failed to remove the genuine doubts surrounding the Will. The Supreme Court found nothing perverse or irrational in those concurrent findings.Instead of identifying any legal error, the High Court had effectively reassessed the evidence and substituted its own conclusions, which was beyond the scope of a second appeal. The Bench held that such interference was legally impermissible.Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court restored the decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the alleged Will could not be accepted because its propounders failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution and failed to satisfy the judicial conscience regarding its genuineness.As a consequence, the widow’s claim as the sole Class I heir of her deceased husband stood restored, and the declaration of her ownership and possession over the disputed property was upheld.Significance Of The JudgmentThe judgment reinforces the settled principle that proof of a Will involves far more than establishing signatures or complying with statutory formalities. Where legitimate doubts arise from the circumstances surrounding its execution, the person relying upon the Will must convincingly explain those circumstances and satisfy the Court that the document truly represents the free and informed intention of the testator.CIVIL APPEAL No.10990 OF 2016 SARDARI LAL vs BISHAN DASS & ORS.06.07.2026Appearance:For Appellant(s) : Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Anjali Dubey, Adv.For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
