Registered Will Carries Presumption Of Genuineness, Family Settlement Supported By Possession Cannot Be Doubted: Supreme Court Upholds Title Of Second Wife Over Ancestral Property

“Where Will Is Registered And Beneficiary Is In Long Possession, Court Must Respect Testamentary Intent”: On 21st July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a definitive ruling on the weight of registered Wills and oral family settlements in property disputes, especially within a Hindu family context. Supreme  Court restored the trial court’s judgment declaring the second wife, Lasum Bai, as the absolute owner of the suit agricultural lands, rejecting the High Court’s dilution of her ownership share.

Deciding on rival claims over ancestral property left behind by Metpalli Rajanna, the Supreme Court decisively upheld the validity of the registered Will executed by the deceased and recognised the binding effect of the oral family arrangement. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed:

“The Will, being a registered document, carries a strong presumption of genuineness, especially when the opposing party admits the signature of the testator and derives a substantial share under the same Will.”

This judgment sets a significant precedent in reinforcing the importance of testamentary autonomy in Hindu succession and the evidentiary sanctity attached to registered Wills.

Title Battle Over Ancestral Lands In Dasnapur

The dispute revolved around 18 acres 6 guntas of ancestral agricultural land, mainly situated in Dasnapur village. The property originally belonged to Metpalli Ramanna and devolved upon his son Rajanna. Rajanna, after the demise of his first wife Narsamma, married Lasum Bai, who remained childless. Upon Rajanna’s death in 1983, conflicts arose between his second wife, Lasum Bai, and his son from the first marriage, Muthaiah.

The controversy centred on Survey No. 28, measuring 12 acres 32 guntas, where a sub-division of 6 acres 16 guntas fell into dispute. The trial court had decreed in favour of Lasum Bai, declaring her absolute owner on the strength of a registered Will dated 24th July 1974 and an oral family settlement. However, the High Court drastically reduced her share to 1/4th, treating the properties as joint family property.

“Admissions Of Signature And Possession Are Crucial Proofs”: Supreme Court Revives Trial Court’s Decree

In a meticulous analysis of evidence, the Supreme Court highlighted key admissions made by Muthaiah, including: “The defendant admitted that the plaintiff cultivated the northern portion of the disputed land and sold 2 acres thereof to a third party, which he never challenged. He further accepted that the signatures on the registered Will are those of his father.”

The Court pointed out that these admissions, combined with uncontroverted possession, established the legitimacy of the Will and oral settlement.

“Had it been the intention of Rajanna to deprive Muthaiah, the Will could have excluded him entirely. The fact that Muthaiah got the lion’s share under the Will neutralises any suspicion.”

Family Settlement Supported By Possession Valid Even Without Registration

On the point of oral family settlement, the Court reaffirmed established legal principles, observing:

“Family arrangements do not require registration when they are acted upon and supported by possession. Here, the partition of enjoyment of land was made to avoid disputes, evidenced by long-standing possession and transactions.”

Thus, the Court concluded that both the registered Will and family settlement together provided a consistent and credible account of property division, with each party enjoying distinct shares.

Critique of High Court: “Manifest Error In Ignoring Evidentiary Value Of Registered Will And Admissions”

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the High Court for disregarding the binding admissions and erroneously applying the doctrine of joint family property. The judgment stated:

“The High Court fell in manifest error by disturbing the trial court’s well-reasoned decree, overlooking the presumption of genuineness attached to registered Wills and ignoring crucial admissions by the defendant.”

The Court held that Rajanna was competent to execute a Will over property standing in his name and the continuous possession by the second wife after his death, coupled with uncontested alienations, fortified her claim.

Final Verdict: Absolute Ownership Restored To Second Wife, Appeal By Defendant Dismissed

Concluding firmly in favour of the appellants, the Court ruled: “The trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favour of Lasum Bai, granting her absolute rights over the suit schedule properties including 4 acres 16 guntas sold to Janardhan Reddy. The High Court’s interference was unjustified and is set aside.”

The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015, dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 filed by Muthaiah’s legal heirs, and reinstated the trial court decree granting full ownership and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Testamentary Autonomy Reaffirmed In Family Disputes

This ruling has far-reaching implications on inheritance disputes, especially within Hindu families. It underscores:

Registered Wills carry a strong presumption of validity.
Oral family settlements are enforceable when acted upon and corroborated by possession.

Admissions by opposing parties on key issues like signatures and possession hold decisive evidentiary value.
Courts must not lightly disturb trial court findings when based on cogent evidence and settled legal principles.

In reaffirming these doctrines, the Supreme Court has provided much-needed clarity on the sanctity of a testator’s wishes and the legitimacy of amicable family settlements.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2025