Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court

"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, thereby creating a doubt whether the Will is free expression of will of the testator made with full understanding." Supreme Court, in a significant judgment dated July 06, 2026, held that the complete disinheritance of a legally wedded wife in favor of non-relatives constitutes an "unnatural disposition" that creates a legitimate suspicion regarding the validity of a Will.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that while a testator has the prerogative to choose their beneficiaries, the propounder must offer a cogent and truthful explanation for excluding natural heirs who shared a cordial relationship with the deceased.

The dispute involved a suit for declaration of ownership filed by Bhambo Devi, the widow of late Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist. After Chhajju Ram’s death in 1992, the defendants claimed ownership of his properties based on a registered Will executed in 1974. The defendants, who were not close relatives, alleged they had served the couple. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarded the Will as suspicious, but the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed these findings in a second appeal, prompting the present challenge before the apex court.

The primary question before the court was whether the disinheritance of a spouse in favor of non-relatives, coupled with incorrect recitals in the document, constitutes a "suspicious circumstance" that shifts the burden of proof onto the propounder. The court also examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the Will.

Court Explains Onus Of Proof Regarding Wills

The Supreme Court emphasized that the mode of proving a Will is distinct from other documents due to the requirement of satisfying the court’s "judicial conscience." Relying on the landmark ruling in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), the bench noted that the propounder must not only prove the execution but also remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding the document.

Suspicion Must Be Real And Not A Fantasy Of The Mind

While discussing the nature of suspicion, the court referred to Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa ((2021) 11 SCC 277) to clarify that suspicious features must be "real, germane and valid" and not merely a "fantasy of the doubting mind." However, an unjust exclusion of legal heirs and dependents is a classic illustrative circumstance that gives rise to legitimate doubt. The bench noted that the test of satisfaction of judicial conscience comes into operation specifically when the disposition appears unnatural or improbable.

Disinheriting A Caring Spouse Is An Unnatural Act

The bench observed that while a testator can deprive a spouse to provide for children, doing so in favor of a stranger while having a cordial relationship with the wife "pinches the Court’s conscience." In this case, the Will claimed the wife was excluded because she had sufficient ornaments and cash, a reason the court found to be "flimsy" and "untenable." The bench held that such a reason appeared to be "moonshine" put forth only to justify the preparation of a bogus document.

Incorrect Recitals In Wills Undermine Their Genuineness

The court highlighted that the Will contained incorrect statements, such as claiming the beneficiaries were the testator's "nephews" and that he resided with them. Evidence showed the testator lived separately with his wife, who cared for him until his death. Citing Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti ((1990) 1 SCC 266), the court noted that the factum of execution cannot be determined merely by the propounder's witnesses but must consider the "nature and contents of the documents itself."

Illiteracy Of Testator Requires Stricter Scrutiny

Since the testator was an illiterate agriculturist who could only affix a thumb impression, the court held the burden on the propounder was "heavy" to show the testator understood the dispositions. The bench observed that if a Will drafted on the instructions of an illiterate person contains facts incorrect to his knowledge, it cannot be said that he executed the document after fully understanding its contents.

Registration Does Not Automatically Cure All Suspicions

The court addressed the defendants' argument that the Will was registered. Upon perusing the original records, the bench found several uninitialed cuttings on the back page where the Sub-Registrar's endorsement was recorded. Specifically, the name of the "presenter" was changed from "Laxmi Kant Bassi" to "Chhajju" through interpolation. Referring to the Registration Act, 1908, the court held that these unexplained cuttings deprived the propounder of the "presumption of regularity" usually attached to registered documents.

High Court Erred In Interfering With Findings Of Fact

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overturning well-reasoned findings of the lower courts in a second appeal. Citing Mansinghrao Yeshwant Rao Patil v. Ramchandra Govindrao Patil ((1954) 1 SCC 688), the bench reminded that the use of phrases like "conscience of the Court" does not convert a question of fact into one of law. Whether suspicious circumstances exist and whether they are explained is essentially a question of fact not amenable to interference under Section 100 CPC unless the finding is perverse.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a well-reasoned order that discarded a Will shrouded in unexplained suspicions. The bench held that the cumulative effect of the testator's illiteracy, the disinheritance of the wife without cogent reason, incorrect recitals, and faulty registration endorsements rendered the Will invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decree in favor of the appellant.

Date of Decision: July 06, 2026