A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that registration of a Will by itself does not prove its genuineness, and when suspicious circumstances surround its execution, the propounder must satisfactorily dispel those doubts before the Court can accept it.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh setting aside the trial court’s judgment which had partly decreed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held that the registered Will relied upon by the plaintiff was surrounded by serious suspicious circumstances and had not been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The Court ultimately upheld the validity of a later unregistered Will executed by the testatrix shortly before her death.

“Plaintiff Must Succeed on the Strength of His Own Title and Not on Weakness of the Defendant’s Case”

At the outset, the Court reiterated a foundational principle governing civil suits seeking declaration of title. The Court observed that:

“In a suit of this description, if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title and they have not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case of the defendants.”

The plaintiff’s claim to ownership was entirely based on a registered Will dated 28.03.1990 allegedly executed by the testatrix Anasuyamma. Since the defendants seriously disputed the Will, the burden rested squarely on the plaintiff to prove its execution strictly in accordance with law.

The Court emphasized that mere production of a registered Will is insufficient unless the statutory requirements governing proof of Wills are satisfied.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute concerned several immovable properties located in Prattipadu village of Guntur District.

The plaintiff claimed that Anasuyamma executed a registered Will on 28 March 1990 bequeathing all her properties in his favour. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Anasuyamma on 24 September 1997, the defendants illegally trespassed into the schedule properties on 13 January 1998, compelling him to institute O.S. No.03 of 1998 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

The defendants contested the claim and alleged that the 1990 Will was obtained fraudulently by the plaintiff. They relied upon a subsequent Will dated 10 August 1997, executed shortly before the death of the testatrix, under which the properties were bequeathed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

The trial court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that decision, defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present appeal before the High Court.

Court Explains the Law on Proof of Wills

The Court examined the statutory framework governing proof of testamentary documents and referred to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao emphasized that even if a Will is registered, it must still satisfy the strict evidentiary requirements governing attestation and proof. The Court stated:

“Even though the alleged Will is a registered Will, no importance will be given to the registered Will and it cannot be treated as a genuine Will unless it is proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.”

The Court further reiterated the settled legal principle that when suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the burden on the propounder becomes significantly heavier.

“Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding a Will Must Be Removed by the Propounder”

Upon evaluating the evidence, the Court found multiple contradictions in the testimony of the attesting witnesses who supported the 1990 Will.

The witnesses gave conflicting versions regarding the circumstances of execution, the presence of individuals at the Registrar’s office, and the sequence of attestation. One witness admitted that he could not read or write, while another witness described events inconsistent with the contents of the document.

The Court also noted a crucial circumstance that cast doubt on the Will. The testatrix had previously appeared as a witness in another suit in 1995, several years after the alleged execution of the 1990 Will. However, she never mentioned the existence of such a Will in her testimony.

Highlighting this omission, the Court observed:

“If the testatrix really executed Ex.A-1 Will, she would have certainly spoken about the execution of Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.54 of 1993, but she had not stated about the execution of the Will in the said evidence.”

This circumstance, coupled with inconsistencies in the evidence of attesting witnesses, created serious suspicion regarding the genuineness of the Will.

The Court therefore concluded that the propounder failed to remove the legitimate suspicious circumstances surrounding the document.

“A Will Need Not Be Registered – What Matters Is Proof in Accordance with Law”

The defendants relied upon a later Will dated 10 August 1997, which was not registered. Despite its unregistered nature, the Court found that the Will was properly proved through the testimony of the attesting witnesses.

All the attesting witnesses appeared before the Court and consistently deposed about the execution of the Will, the instructions given by the testatrix, and the attestation process. Their testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination.

The Court clarified the legal position regarding registration of Wills:

“A Will need not be registered, and mere registration of a Will not by itself is sufficient to remove suspicion.”

Since the 1997 Will was executed shortly before the death of the testatrix and was proved through reliable testimony, the Court held that it constituted the last testament of the deceased and therefore prevailed over the earlier disputed Will.

Plaintiff Not Entitled to Declaration of Title or Possession

The Court also observed that the plaintiff was not a natural heir of the testatrix, whereas the defendants were Class-II heirs under the law of succession. The testatrix had died without any Class-I heirs, and her husband had predeceased her.

Because the plaintiff failed to establish the validity of the Will forming the basis of his title, he could not claim declaration of ownership or recovery of possession.

Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court erred in partly decreeing the suit without properly appreciating the evidence on record.

Allowing the appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court held that the registered Will relied upon by the plaintiff was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was not proved in accordance with law, while the later unregistered Will executed in favour of the defendants was validly proved and constituted the last testament of the testatrix.

Date of Decision: 10 March 2026