Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

"Testator was an illiterate person, therefore, the burden was heavy on the propounder of the Will to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the Will was executed by the testator with free will and full understanding of its contents." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 06, 2026, held that the illiteracy of a testator places a significantly higher burden on the propounder of a Will to establish that the document was executed with a full understanding of its nature and effect.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan observed that while registration of a Will carries a presumption of validity, such a presumption is unavailable when the registration process itself is riddled with unexplained cuttings and alterations. The Court noted that "illiteracy of the testator coupled with incorrect statements in the Will raises a serious doubt as to whether the testator executed the Will after fully understanding its content."

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding the Will's validity. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the propounders had satisfactorily explained the suspicious circumstances, particularly given the testator's illiteracy. Finally, the bench examined if the disinheritance of a caring wife in favor of non-relatives constituted an unexplained suspicious feature.

Burden Of Proof In Will Execution

The Court began by reiterating the established mode of proving a Will as laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443] and Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb [AIR 1962 SC 567]. It emphasized that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder, and in the presence of suspicious circumstances, the propounder must satisfy the court's conscience. The bench noted that a Will being a solemn document, its proof ceases to be a simple dispute between parties and becomes a matter of judicial conscience.

Heavy Onus When Dealing With Illiterate Testators

The bench focused specifically on the testator's illiteracy as a factor that heightens the propounder's burden. It observed that in the case of an illiterate person who could only use a thumb impression, the Court must be "circumspect and cautious" in testing the evidence. It must be clearly established that the contents were read over and explained to the testator, especially when the Will contains factual recitals that are proved to be incorrect.

Incorrect Factual Recitals As A Suspicious Circumstance

The Court found that the Will contained two material statements found to be false: that the beneficiaries were the testator's nephews and that they provided him with food and clothing. Evidence showed the beneficiaries were not close relatives and the testator resided separately with his wife, who cared for him until his death. The bench remarked that if a Will is drafted as per the instructions of the testator, it is unlikely to contain facts that are incorrect to his knowledge.

Registration Process Marred By Uninitialed Cuttings

Addressing the High Court’s reliance on the Will being registered, the Supreme Court pointed out grave irregularities on the back of the document. The name of the presenter was initially recorded as "Laxmi Kant Bassi" and later struck off to be replaced by "Chhajju" without any initials or signatures from the Sub-Registrar. Under Sections 34, 35, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer has a duty to satisfy himself regarding the identity of the executant.

Benefit Of Presumption Not Available For Faulty Registration

The Court held that since the cuttings were uninitialed and unexplained, the benefit of the presumption under the Registration Act was unavailable. "It cannot be said with certainty that while issuing the certificate of registration, the registering officer followed the requisite procedure," the bench noted. Consequently, the registration did not dispel the doubts arising from the suspicious circumstances, as there was no certainty that the Will was read out to the testator by the officer.

Disinheriting The Natural Heir Without Cogent Reason

The Court observed that disinheriting a wife who had cordial relations with the testator in favor of distant relatives is an "abnormal" disposition. Referencing Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage [(2002) 2 SCC 85], the bench distinguished cases where a stranger challenges a Will from cases where a natural heir is deprived. It held that while a testator has the prerogative to choose beneficiaries, an unexplained exclusion of the sole Class I heir creates a legitimate suspicion.

High Court's Limited Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC

The bench criticized the High Court for interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. It relied on Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti [(1990) 1 SCC 266] to state that the factum of execution cannot be determined merely by the propounder's evidence but must be judged against the nature and contents of the document. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning well-reasoned findings that the Will failed to satisfy the judicial conscience.

The Supreme Court concluded that the suspicious circumstances, including the incorrect recitals, the unexplained alterations in the registration record, and the unnatural disinheritance of the widow, remained unexplained. It held that the First Appellate Court was justified in discarding the Will. The bench emphasized that the propounder failed to discharge the heavy burden necessitated by the testator's illiteracy.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court was restored.

Date of Decision: July 06, 2026