Suspicion Alone Can’t Defeat a Registered Will – Himachal Pradesh High Court Affirms Testamentary Bequest by Father to One Daughter and Son-in-Law

“A Testator’s Preference for a Caring Child Is Not Unnatural” – Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of a 1983 registered Will executed by Anokhi Ram in favour of only one of his daughters and her husband, rejecting the challenge of other daughters who were excluded from inheritance. Justice Satyen Vaidya ruled that mere exclusion of Class-I heirs is not suspicious when there is cogent evidence to show the testator’s intention and care received from the beneficiary.

The Court emphasized, “Once the valid execution of Will stood proved and the suspicion stood removed, then to draw any contrary hypothesis that is antithetical to the intent of the testator will not be justified.”

“Preference in Inheritance is Not Disinheritance Without Reason” – Court Upholds Testamentary Autonomy

The appellants, daughters of deceased Anokhi Ram and his wife Pampo Devi, had challenged the Will dated 06.01.1983, which bequeathed all immovable property to another daughter Prema Devi and her husband Gopal. They alleged the Will was fraudulent, the result of misrepresentation, and violative of customary law prohibiting alienation of ancestral property.

However, the Court dismissed these arguments, observing:

“It was not even the case of the defendants that Anokhi Ram was not maintaining cordial relations with his wife and other daughters… Yet, the preference for the child who cared for him in old age, amidst financial and health difficulties, cannot be termed unnatural.”

A Dispute Over Will Made Four Decades Ago

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in 2012, nearly three decades after the death of Anokhi Ram (03.08.1984), seeking to invalidate both the 1983 Will and the mutation of property based upon it. They claimed ignorance of the Will and mutation till 2011, after Prema Devi’s death.

The Will had been registered on 07.01.1983, the day after execution. It named Prema Devi and her husband Gopal as beneficiaries, to the exclusion of Anokhi Ram’s wife and other daughters. The plaintiffs alleged that Anokhi Ram lacked mental capacity, that the land was ancestral and thus could not be willed, and that fraud had been exercised.

“Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Existence of Ancestral Coparcenary Property” – Court Reiterates Burden of Proof

Rejecting the plea that the property was ancestral and thus not disposable by Will, the Court held:

“After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no presumption as to existence of a Hindu Undivided Family. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the property was ancestral coparcenary — a burden they failed to discharge.”

The First Appellate Court had already held that the suit property was not shown to be inherited through a lineal male ancestor so as to meet the requirement of ancestral property under Hindu law. Hence, Anokhi Ram had full right to bequeath it through a Will.

Suspicion Removed by Clear Evidence of Love, Care and Cohabitation

The plaintiffs had argued that it was suspicious that a father would disinherit his wife and minor daughters. But the Court noted:

“There is no material on record to suggest that the minor daughters of Anokhi Ram and Pampo Devi were not looked after by Prema and Gopal even after Anokhi Ram’s death.”

“From the sum total of facts established on record, the hypothesis drawn by the Courts below cannot be said to be unfounded, illegal or perverse.”

The Will was proved through the credible testimony of attesting witness DW-1 Netar Singh and further corroborated by DWs 7, 8, and 9. The deposition showed that Prema Devi and Gopal had shifted to the house of Anokhi Ram in 1977-78, cared for him during illness, repaid his debts, and supported the family, including minor daughters. The Court ruled:

“Execution of the Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reason to establish trust cannot be said to be unnatural.”

Mental Capacity Not Doubted – “Bald Allegations Not Enough”

While the plaintiffs tried to argue that Anokhi Ram was not of sound mind, the Court noted:

“No medical evidence has been produced. Plaintiffs made bald assertions and referred to a doctor, but neither records nor the doctor’s testimony was presented.”

Thus, the Court affirmed the findings of both lower courts that Anokhi Ram executed the Will with full capacity and understanding.

Delay in Challenging Mutation: Plaintiffs Knew in 1984

On limitation, the High Court agreed with the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs’ plea of ignorance of the Will and mutation until 2011 was untenable:

“The plaintiffs had knowledge of the mutation since 1984. Their plea of ignorance was rightly rejected. The suit was rightly held barred by limitation.”

The Court rejected the plea to frame additional substantial questions of law on this ground, citing the power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC allowing an appellate court to consider findings even if no cross-objections were filed.

“Once Will is Duly Executed and Suspicion Removed, Court Must Respect Testator’s Intent” – HC Upholds Concurrent Findings

Justice Vaidya ruled that both courts below had rightly concluded that the Will was valid and genuine:

“The choice of testator to prefer one daughter and son-in-law cannot be questioned when supported by facts, caregiving, and credible testimony.”

“Suspicion alone cannot defeat a Will duly executed and proved.”

Appeal Dismissed, Decree Affirmed

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts were upheld.

“No ground is made out for interference in the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2019… the appeal is dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 2nd September 2025