Suspicion Cannot Be Raised Without Pleading or Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court Upholds Unregistered Will

The Delhi High Court, in a landmark ruling, reversed the dismissal of a probate petition concerning an unregistered Will and simultaneously set aside a partition decree granted in favour of the other legal heirs. In a judgment authored by Justice Anil Kshetrapal, sitting with Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, the Court held that the Will was legally proved and free of suspicious circumstances, while warning against courts acting on unpleaded assumptions or conjecture.

“It is not appropriate for the Court to rely upon alleged suspicious circumstances at the time of final decision without the foundation of the same having been laid,” the Division Bench declared, reinstating the sanctity of testamentary freedom and procedural fairness.

The case concerned a probate petition filed by the appellant, Surinder Kumar Grover, the son of the deceased Smt. Sheelawati Grover, who executed a Will on 10.05.1989 bequeathing her entire property in Model Town, Delhi, solely to him. This Will was disputed by the other children of the Testatrix, who filed a partition suit claiming intestate succession. The Single Judge had accepted their claims, discarded the Will citing “suspicious circumstances,” and decreed partition. That judgment now stands set aside.

“A Will Is the Last Voice of the Testatrix — It Must Not Be Silenced by Surmise or Silence in Pleadings”

At the heart of the High Court’s reversal lies the principle that suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, especially when not raised in pleadings or tested in cross-examination.

The Court noted that the Will had been duly attested in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by two attesting witnesses (PW2 and PW6) and the scribe (PW5)—the Testatrix’s daughter-in-law.

The Bench observed:

“No question was suggested or put to the attesting witnesses or the scribe during cross-examination about the alleged suspicious circumstances. The Respondents, having failed to challenge the due execution during trial, cannot invoke untested inferences at the final stage.”

The Single Judge had cited nine suspicious features including the Testatrix signing the Will twice, its being folded multiple times, absence of a draft, exclusion of daughters, lack of photographs from a birthday function, and the Will not being executed at the Testatrix’s own residence.

Dismissing each ground systematically, the Division Bench ruled:“Suspicion, to be judicially relevant, must first exist in pleadings, then be tested in trial. None of the so-called suspicious circumstances were pleaded by the Respondents nor confronted to the witnesses.”

“Disinheritance Is Not Discrediting — Testamentary Freedom Includes The Right To Prefer One Heir Over Others”

One of the central arguments against the Will was that it disinherited the four daughters and another son of the Testatrix without citing any apparent estrangement or hostility.

The Court, however, ruled that:

“There is no legal obligation on the Testator or Testatrix to divide property equally or include all legal heirs. The fact that the daughters were married and settled is a valid and plausible reason for exclusion, particularly in the social context of 1989.”

The Will had clearly explained the reasons for preferring the appellant son—he was economically weaker and lived in the suit property with the Testatrix. The Will, written in Hindi without legal jargon, recorded:

“My son Surinder is not doing well in business and is unable to maintain his household. Hence, I bequeath the house to him.”

The Court also clarified that a simple Will in vernacular language, executed by a woman educated only up to Class II, cannot be disbelieved merely due to lack of legal polish or drafting:

“The Will was scribed by the daughter-in-law, educated up to Class VIII. It does not use legal language, nor was it expected to. Testamentary capacity is not contingent on formal education.”

“Multiple Signatures, Folded Paper, and Absence of Cameras in 1989 Do Not Create Suspicion in Law”

In a compelling rejection of the Single Judge’s inferences, the Court addressed the nature of the Will’s physical condition and execution.

On the Testatrix signing twice, the Court noted:

“No explanation was sought from the witnesses about the dual signatures. The burden to question this lay on the objectors.”

On the folding of the Will:

“The scribe, who preserved the Will, folded it as per her convenience. The preservation method of a document does not taint its validity.”

On the absence of photographs from the birthday function where the Will was executed, the Court remarked:

“In 1989, cameras were a luxury. Absence of photographs cannot be stretched into a theory of fabrication.”

As to the venue of execution being the son’s house and not the Testatrix’s home, the Court responded:

“She was the owner of the property and her son lived there with her. The place of execution has no bearing in absence of coercion.”

“Prior Will Never Proved, Cannot Be Compared”: Court Rejects Signature Comparison with Earlier Withdrawn Will

The Respondents had attempted to cast doubt on the Will by comparing its signatures with an earlier Will dated 06.02.1989, which had been allegedly made in favour of the Testatrix’s husband. That Will, however, had never been proved in court and was withdrawn by the husband himself, who later conceded that the 10.05.1989 Will was valid.

The Court unequivocally rejected the attempted comparison:

“In absence of proof of the earlier Will, no comparison of signatures can be made. No handwriting expert was examined either.”

The Bench added that K.K. Grover’s withdrawal of his probate petition and acknowledgment of the later Will strengthens the validity of the appellant’s claim, not weakens it.

“Last Wishes Must Be Honoured”: Partition Suit Fails as Valid Will Excludes Other Heirs

Having held the Will to be duly executed and valid, the Court concluded that the partition suit filed by the disinherited heirs had no legal foundation.

“The property was validly bequeathed by the Testatrix in favour of the appellant. The suit for partition filed by the other children fails and is dismissed.”

The Court allowed FAO(OS) No. 91/2018, thereby granting probate in favour of the appellant, and dismissed RFA(OS) No. 39/2018, which had challenged his exclusive claim to the property.

Judgment Reasserts Judicial Discipline in Probate Law

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of procedural discipline in Will disputes. It serves as a cautionary precedent against judicial overreach in introducing suspicion without evidentiary foundation, while reiterating that testamentary freedom is a constitutional right, not subject to cultural expectations or emotional fairness.

The Delhi High Court’s firm stance is encapsulated in its key observation:

“A Will is the final voice of the Testator or Testatrix — it must be respected, unless strong and proven reasons justify its rejection. Unfounded suspicion is not one of them.”

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025