Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court

"Disposition in favour of the respondents, who were not close relatives, while disinheriting the widow i.e., the sole Class I heir of the testator, was unnatural and raised suspicion." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 06, 2026, held that the mere registration of a Will is insufficient to dispel doubts regarding its valid execution if the document is otherwise surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that in cases involving illiterate testators, the propounder carries a heavier burden to prove that the contents were fully understood by the executant before signing.

The dispute originated from a suit filed by Bhambo Devi, the widow of late Chhajju Ram, seeking a declaration of ownership over her deceased husband's estate. Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist, died in 1992, following which the defendants claimed ownership of his properties based on a registered Will allegedly executed in 1974. While the Trial Court and First Appellate Court invalidated the Will citing several suspicious circumstances, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed these findings in a second appeal, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

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 suspicious nature of the Will. The court also examined whether the propounders had successfully discharged the burden of proving that the illiterate testator executed the Will with a free mind and full understanding of its contents.

Propounder Must Satisfy Judicial Conscience To Dispel Suspicion

The Supreme Court emphasised that the mode of proving a Will is not merely a technical exercise under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act or Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The judges noted that the exercise is complete only when the propounder satisfies the Court’s conscience that the testator signed the document with free will and full awareness of the nature of the dispositions.

"Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the Will could be accepted as genuine."

Citing the landmark precedent 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], the bench reiterated that if a Will appears unnatural or improbable in light of relevant circumstances, the court must be circumspect. In this case, the court found that the testator was illiterate and the Will contained material misstatements that contradicted established evidence.

Unnatural Disinheritance Of The Wife Raises Grave Suspicion

A major point of contention was the total disinheritance of the testator’s widow, who was his sole Class I heir and with whom he shared a cordial relationship. The Will claimed she was excluded because she possessed sufficient jewellery and cash, but the court found this explanation flimsy as no details of such assets were provided.

"The circumstance of disinheriting a wife may or may not be considered suspicious... But disinheriting a wife, who had all throughout been with the testator and had cordial relations with him, in favour of a stranger, or a distant relative, raises suspicion."

The bench distinguished the present case from Sridevi v. Jayaraj Shetty [(2005) 2 SCC 784], noting that while a testator has the right to choose beneficiaries, the complete deprivation of a caring spouse in favour of non-relatives requires a cogent and truthful explanation, which was missing here.

Registration Benefits Lost Due To Uninitialed Cuttings On Endorsement

The court conducted a close scrutiny of the original Will and noticed significant discrepancies on the reverse side where the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement was recorded. The name of the person presenting the Will for registration was originally written as "Laxmi Kant Bassi," which was later struck out and replaced with the testator's name, "Chhajju," without any initials or signatures from the Registering Officer.

"These uninitialed cuttings at the back of the Will assume importance because it deprives the propounder of the Will the benefit of its registration which would have otherwise raised a presumption."

The bench observed that 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 person presenting the document. In this case, the lack of proper initials on the corrections meant that the legal presumption that the Will was read over to the testator by the officer could not be invoked.

Incorrect Statements In Will Suggest Lack Of Understanding

The court highlighted that the Will contained two patently false statements: that the beneficiaries were the testator's "nephews" and that he resided with them. Evidence showed that the beneficiaries were not close relatives and that the testator lived separately with his wife.

"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."

Following the logic in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti [(1990) 1 SCC 266], the court held that the factum of execution cannot be determined solely by considering the evidence of the propounder. The court must look at inherent improbabilities and the nature of the document itself to reach a conclusion.

High Court Erred In Reversing Concurrent Findings Of Fact

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. It held that the existence of suspicious circumstances and the sufficiency of their explanation are essentially questions of fact. Since the lower courts had provided a well-reasoned analysis based on evidence, the High Court should not have interfered unless the findings were perverse.

"The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the first appellate court."

The bench restored the judgment of the Trial Court, concluding that the propounder failed to dispel the clouds of suspicion surrounding the 1974 Will.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment. It affirmed the decree of the Trial Court, holding that the suspicious circumstances—primarily the disinheritance of the wife and the questionable registration process—rendered the Will invalid.

Date of Decision: July 06, 2026