Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court

In a significant ruling Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a second appeal sought to overturn the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, both of which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of title, possession, and partition based on an alleged Will executed by one Dashmat Bai.
The High Court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the Will as required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and further held that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were not adequately addressed.

“Merely producing a document claiming it to be a Will is insufficient. The law mandates that the execution must be validly attested in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution must be dispelled,” observed the Court.

The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming title and possession over the property of Dashmat Bai, an illiterate woman who passed away without issue. The suit property included substantial agricultural land inherited by Dashmat Bai from her husband. The plaintiffs relied on a Will allegedly executed by Dashmat Bai on November 3, 1995, bequeathing her property to plaintiff No. 2, Rajendra Kumar, and defendants No. 15 and 16.

The defendants disputed the authenticity of the Will, alleging it to be forged. They argued that the Will was unregistered, contained suspicious recitals, and lacked proper attestation. They further contended that one of the defendants, who was also a beneficiary under the alleged Will, specifically denied its execution.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the due execution of the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The first appellate court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiffs failed to address or explain these doubts.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the High Court in second appeal, contending that both lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence and that the alleged suspicious circumstances were neither pleaded by the defendants nor supported by evidence.

"A Will Must Satisfy Legal Requirements; Proof of Execution is Not Optional"
The High Court underscored the legal requirements for the execution and proof of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It stated:
“A Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix their mark to the Will. Each witness must also sign the Will in the presence of the testator. Failure to meet these requirements renders the Will legally invalid.”

The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy these mandates. It noted that the sole attesting witness examined, PW-3 (Rajeshwar Singh), did not testify that the testatrix affixed her thumb impression on the Will in his presence or that he signed the document in her presence. “Without proof of attestation as required by law, the document cannot be regarded as a validly executed Will,” the Court held.

“Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Brushed Aside; They Must Be Explained”
The Court highlighted several suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged Will, including:

False Recitals: The Will falsely claimed that plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 15 and 16 had cared for the testatrix for over 30 years. However, plaintiff No. 1 admitted that her family had moved away from the village in 1987 and was not residing with the testatrix.
Illiteracy and Age of the Testatrix: The testatrix was 98 years old and illiterate at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. There was no evidence that the contents of the Will were read out or explained to her.
Presence of Beneficiaries During Execution: The Court found it suspicious that one of the beneficiaries, plaintiff No. 2, was present during the execution of the Will.
Denial of the Will by a Beneficiary: One of the beneficiaries, defendant No. 16, denied the execution of the Will, further casting doubt on its authenticity.
The Court stated: “In cases of suspicious circumstances, the onus on the propounder of the Will becomes heavier. It is their duty to dispel all legitimate doubts surrounding the execution of the Will. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to address or explain these glaring discrepancies.”

“Findings of Fact Cannot Be Disturbed in Second Appeal”
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or contrary to law.

Citing State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637, the Court observed:
“A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is limited to substantial questions of law. Findings of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed unless they are unsupported by evidence or contrary to established legal principles.”

In this case, the Court found that the findings of the lower courts were based on a thorough examination of evidence and were consistent with the legal requirements for proving a Will. It concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the due execution of the Will or to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding it. It stated:
“Merely producing a document and calling it a Will does not suffice. The law requires that its execution be proved in accordance with statutory mandates, and any doubts surrounding its authenticity must be resolved. The plaintiffs in this case have failed to meet both these obligations.”

The Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. It concluded: “In the absence of proof of valid execution and in the presence of unresolved suspicious circumstances, the alleged Will cannot be upheld. The appeal is dismissed, and the findings of the lower courts are affirmed.”

Date of Decision: January 3, 2025