A Will Without Legal Proof & Excluding Natural Heirs Is Suspicious: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Reopen 45-Year-Old Land Dispute

“Even a 20-Year-Old Document Cannot Save a Will Surrounded by Suspicion” – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a long-pending matter, emphatically dismissed a 45-year-old writ petition, holding that the petitioners had utterly failed to establish the validity of a Will that formed the basis of their title claim over agricultural land. In doing so, the Court reinforced the principle that “concurrent findings of fact recorded by consolidation authorities are not open to interference unless patently perverse or rendered without jurisdiction.”

The writ arose from consolidation proceedings initiated as far back as 1977, and all three statutory authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953—the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation—had unanimously rejected the claim of the petitioners, who had asserted title based on a registered Will dated 07.05.1951 allegedly executed by one Kadedeen.

“Natural Doubt Arises When a Will Favors Strangers and Disinherits Minor Grandchildren”

The petitioners claimed inheritance of land through a Will allegedly made by Kadedeen in their favour. However, the Court noted a critical fact: “Petitioners are not part of the family of Kadedeen.” This disassociation from the natural bloodline raised serious suspicions about the authenticity of the Will, particularly when Kadedeen’s own grandson, Kamla Kant, was alive and a minor at the time.

The Court took serious note of the suspicious nature of the Will and the exclusion of natural heirs:

“Surya Narain son of Kadedeen died in 1945, when Kadedeen was alive and in normal circumstances it could not be believed that Kadedeen would disassociate his minor grandson…”

It further observed that there was no evidence of any discord or estrangement between Kadedeen and his family members that would justify disinheriting his own grandson in favour of unrelated individuals.

“A Will Not Proved in Accordance with Law Cannot Confer Title” – Petitioners Failed to Discharge Legal Burden

The core legal failure, as per the High Court, was that no issue was framed on the validity of the Will before the Consolidation Officer. This omission, unchallenged at the time by the petitioners, proved fatal. The petitioners never raised an objection during the framing of issues, nor did they take steps to formally prove the Will under the mandate of law.

The Court highlighted:

“Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the issue of Will at length... a finding was returned that petitioners have failed to prove the Will in accordance with law as well as upheld the suspicious circumstances.”

Relying on Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court reminded that proving a Will requires proper attestation and formal proof. No such effort was made by the petitioners even after the matter reached appellate and revisional stages.

The Court noted:

“A doubt that said Kadedeen could execute a Will in favour of strangers, would be a natural doubt, specifically when all three authorities have returned a finding that family members of Kadedeen have cordial relations amongst each other.”

“Certiorari Is Not an Appeal in Disguise” – High Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Consolidation Cases

The Court also reiterated that it would not act as a court of appeal in writ jurisdiction. Referring to the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgments in Krishnanand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation [(2015) 1 SCC 553] and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das [2023 SCC Online SC 1996], the High Court underscored that writ courts cannot interfere merely on questions of fact.

“Certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction… It should be well remembered… that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.”

“The High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below…”

These observations solidified the Court’s stand: concurrent factual findings will not be interfered with unless marred by illegality or perversity, and in the instant case, no such error was found.

“A 45-Year Delay and No Mutation Since 1953 – Petitioners Sat Over Their Rights”

The Court found it striking that despite claiming rights under a Will dated 1951, the petitioners had never taken steps to mutate the property in their names, even after consolidation proceedings began in 1977. This long inaction further confirmed the Court’s finding that the Will was concocted or at least unreliable.

“From 1953 till now, no steps were taken to record the petitioners’ names based on the Will… this itself casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the Will.”

Adding another layer to the invalidity, the authorities had observed that some of the land parcels were of such nature—such as sirdaari land—that they could not even be subject to testamentary disposition, making the very object of the Will legally impermissible.

“No Interference Required; Findings Are Legal and Not Perverse” – Writ Petition Dismissed

Having examined the contentions, the High Court conclusively held:

“At this belated stage the Court cannot reopen the issue of Will… since all the authorities under Act, 1953 have put a doubt on the manner of execution of Will, which are legally valid also.”

The Court also relied on its previous ruling in Satish Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:233235, where it discussed in detail the standard for proving Wills.

The writ was ultimately dismissed, and with it, a four-decade-old claim based on a suspicious Will finally came to an end.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025