Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Mere exclusion of a natural heir, without anything more, cannot by itself constitute a suspicious circumstance," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that the mere exclusion of a natural heir from a Will does not constitute a suspicious circumstance if the document is otherwise proved to be validly executed.

A bench of Justice Deepak Gupta observed that the very purpose of executing a testamentary disposition is to alter the normal line of succession, and such a choice by the testator cannot be termed irrational without further evidence of fraud or coercion.

The dispute arose over the estate of one Hardeva, which eventually devolved upon his daughter-in-law, Smt. Bohti. Upon her death in 1995, the plaintiff (Ganga Devi, the sister-in-law) claimed ownership as the sole surviving heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the defendants (collaterals of Bohti’s husband) propounded a registered Will dated August 30, 1995, asserting that they had cared for the deceased during her lifetime. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, upholding the validity of the Will.

The primary question before the court was whether the Will dated August 30, 1995, was surrounded by suspicious circumstances that rendered it invalid. The court was also called upon to determine if the exclusion of a natural heir and the physical infirmity of the testatrix constituted sufficient grounds to discard the testamentary document in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Onus Of Proving Suspicious Circumstances Lies On The Objector

The Court noted that while the initial burden lies on the propounder to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will, once this is discharged, the onus shifts to the person alleging fraud or undue influence. Justice Gupta observed that the plaintiff had specifically alleged fraud but failed to produce any convincing evidence to substantiate the claim. The bench emphasized that mere allegations of infirmity or old age are insufficient to prove a lack of testamentary capacity.

Old Age And Physical Ailments Do Not Establish Lack Of Capacity

Addressing the plaintiff’s contention regarding Smt. Bohti's health, the Court held that old age, physical weakness, or bodily ailments do not, by themselves, establish a lack of testamentary capacity. The Court relied on the testimony of the medical practitioner, DW-2 Dr. C.D. Sharma, who confirmed that despite her physical ailments, the deceased remained mentally alert and capable of understanding her affairs. The bench noted that the determinative factor is whether the testator possessed a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution.

Exclusion Of Natural Heir Is The Core Objective Of A Will

"The very object of a testamentary disposition is to alter the normal line of succession. Mere exclusion of a natural heir does not render a Will suspicious."

The High Court dismissed the argument that the Will should be discarded because the plaintiff, a natural heir, was excluded. The Court observed that the Will itself recorded that relations between Smt. Bohti and the plaintiff were strained and that the defendants had been looking after her. The bench held that since the reasons for preferring the defendants were expressly recorded by the testatrix and were not irrational, the disposition could not be described as unnatural.

Technical Discrepancies In Testimony Not Fatal To Duly Proved Will

The Court also addressed a discrepancy regarding an attesting witness, Om Parkash, who was described as a Sarpanch in the Will. While it was argued he only assumed office in 1996, the Court found that a Gram Panchayat resolution from 1995 proved he was functioning as Sarpanch at the time of the Will's execution. The bench termed the contradictory statement in cross-examination as an "inadvertent error" that could not discredit a document supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

Registration Of A Will Is Not Mandatory For Validity

"Registration of a Will is not mandatory. An unregistered Will, if otherwise duly executed and proved, is as valid and enforceable as a registered Will."

The bench reiterated that non-registration of a Will cannot, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance. It further noted that the law only requires attestation by a minimum of two witnesses, and the presence of more than two witnesses, as seen in this case, actually lends additional assurance regarding the authenticity of the document. The Court found no perversity or misreading of evidence in the findings of the lower courts.

The High Court concluded that the suspicious circumstances alleged by the plaintiff were not "real, germane, or substantial" but rather the product of conjectures. Finding that the defendants had successfully proved the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026