Signature on Last Page Sufficient to Validate Will Under Indian Succession Law: Madras High Court Upholds Genuineness of Unregistered Will

Madras High Court dismissed a Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit. Justice R.N. Manjula upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, confirming the validity of a Will executed by the late K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar, which bequeathed the suit property exclusively to his eldest son, the first defendant, disinheriting other legal heirs.

The Court observed that, "Under Indian Succession Law, the signature of the testator on the last page of the Will is sufficient to validate it. The Will was duly executed in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff failed to prove any fraud, coercion, or undue influence. The burden of proof on the propounder of the Will was satisfactorily discharged."

"Testator's Right to Disinherit Heirs Valid If Reasons Provided"

The appellant, K.V. Ramaraj, filed a suit for partition claiming one-sixth share in the self-acquired property of his late father. He challenged the Will dated May 20, 2000, alleging suspicious circumstances and asserting that it unfairly disinherited all heirs except the first defendant. The first defendant, relying on the Will, claimed that the property was exclusively bequeathed to him due to his care and support of his parents.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument, stating, "A testator’s decision to exclude legal heirs is valid if specific reasons are provided. The Will explicitly states that the first defendant cared for the testator and his wife during their lifetime, including attending to their medical needs. This explanation removes any suspicion regarding the disinheritance of other heirs."

The Court relied on the decision in G. Lalitha v. G. Ponnurangam (2011), which held that excluding legal heirs does not invalidate a Will if reasons are given in the document.

"Will Execution Complied With Legal Formalities: No Suspicious Circumstances Proven"

The plaintiff raised several allegations challenging the Will's genuineness, including that the testator did not sign each page, corrections in the property description were not attested, and that the Will was unregistered. He also questioned why the testator traveled 11 km to a notary instead of using a nearby Sub-Registrar’s Office and claimed contradictions in witness testimony.

Addressing these allegations, the Court held, "The signature on the last page of the Will is sufficient to meet the requirements of Indian Succession Law. The corrections made under the testator's instructions were initialed by the notary, and the absence of the testator’s attestation on the corrections is not fatal to the document’s validity. Non-registration of the Will does not affect its validity under Indian law."

The Court further noted, "The testator’s decision to execute the Will at a specific notary’s office instead of the Sub-Registrar’s Office is explained by the fact that the execution took place on a Saturday, when registration offices were closed. This choice cannot be viewed as suspicious in the absence of contrary evidence."

Responding to claims of contradictions in witness testimony, the Court stated, "Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the attesting witnesses and the notary do not affect the validity of the Will. The propounder of the Will has sufficiently proven that the testator executed the document after understanding its contents and of his own free will."

"No Fraud, Coercion, or Undue Influence Proven by Plaintiff"

The Court noted that the burden to prove fraud, coercion, or undue influence lies with the challenger of the Will. It stated, "The plaintiff failed to provide any credible evidence to support his allegations of fraud or coercion. On the contrary, the testimony of the attesting witnesses and the notary was consistent and confirmed that the testator signed the Will in their presence after it was read out and explained to him."

The Court reiterated the principles laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1959), stating, "Proof of a Will does not require mathematical certainty but should satisfy a prudent person. If the propounder establishes that the Will was signed voluntarily by the testator in a sound mind, the burden shifts to the challenger to prove otherwise."

"Standard Of Proof For Wills Met: Genuineness Of Will Upheld"

The Court emphasized that the propounder of the Will met the legal requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The attesting witnesses confirmed witnessing the testator signing the Will, and the notary corroborated the circumstances under which it was executed.

Citing Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023), the Court held, "If relevant materials show that the Will was executed in a sound and disposing state of mind, out of the testator’s free will, and in the presence of witnesses, its validity cannot be doubted."

The Court also referred to Ammu Balachandran v. U.T. Joseph (1996) to address the claim that the testator signed only the last page of the Will. It noted, "The signature of the testator on the last page is sufficient to validate the Will under Indian Succession Law. The absence of signatures on each page is not a ground for invalidating the Will."

The Court made several key observations while addressing the plaintiff’s allegations and confirming the genuineness of the Will:

"The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof."

The Court further noted, "Disinheritance is not a ground to invalidate a Will if reasons are provided. The testator’s preference for the first defendant is supported by evidence of care and affection. Non-registration of a Will does not affect its validity, and minor corrections or procedural choices do not render it invalid."

In conclusion, the Court stated, "The propounder has proven that the testator executed the Will in full knowledge of its contents, and the plaintiff has failed to establish any suspicious circumstances, fraud, or undue influence. The Will is therefore valid and genuine."

The Madras High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It upheld the validity of the Will executed by the late K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar, which excluded all legal heirs except the first defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim for a one-sixth share in the property was rejected.

The Court concluded, "The Will executed by K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar on May 20, 2000, is genuine, valid, and executed in compliance with law. The plaintiff’s allegations of suspicious circumstances are unsubstantiated. The appeal is dismissed with no costs."

Date of Decision: January 20, 2025