Will Made by Poor Man in Favour of Wealthy Stranger Excluding Family Is Inherently Suspicious: Madhya Pradesh High Court Declares Will, Mutation and Sale Void

“No Man of Sound Mind Would Disinherit His Wife and Children Without Strong and Irrefutable Reasons” —  In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of testamentary law, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, on 15th January 2026, dismissed a first appeal challenging the trial court’s decree that had nullified a Will allegedly executed by a poor landowner in favour of a powerful outsider, declaring the document as suspicious, unnatural, and devoid of legal sanctity.

Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen observed that “if such a Will is accepted as genuine, then every powerful or wealthy person could easily usurp the property of poor and helpless people through Will.” The Court further held that “the Will, mutation, and subsequent sale deed are all invalid as they stem from a document that fails the most basic legal test of genuineness under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

“The Exclusion of Legal Heirs in Favour of a Wealthy Stranger from Another Caste Raises Grave Suspicion Which Was Never Rebutted”

The case arose from a suit filed by the legal heirs of Buddhsen, a poor agricultural landowner who died in 1988, leaving behind his wife and children. The plaintiffs claimed to have discovered in 1992 that the name of Defendant No.1, Ramesh Pratap Singh, had been mutated into the revenue records in 1988 based on an alleged Will dated 18.09.1985. On this basis, Defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in 1992 to Defendant No.2, leading to dispossession of the plaintiffs from their ancestral land.

The trial court had decreed the suit declaring the Will, mutation entry, and sale deed as null and void, and directed restoration of possession to the heirs of the deceased. This judgment was challenged by the defendants in the present first appeal.

Justice Bisen observed:

“When a Will deprives the testator’s own wife and children of their only immovable property and confers the entire benefit upon a wealthy, unrelated man from a different caste, the suspicion is not only natural but inevitable.”

Rejecting the argument that the Will was formally attested and proved, the Court held that:

“Mere compliance with formal requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act is insufficient when the surrounding circumstances scream of improbability.”

“Typed Letter Justifying the Will Appears Fabricated, Self-Serving and Drafted Only to Cover Up the Disinheritance”

The defendant had also relied upon a typed letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1), allegedly written by Buddhsen to explain the execution of the Will. The letter stated that Buddhsen’s sons were upset and had asked for compensation, but that he wanted to return a favour to the defendant’s family.

The Court, however, rejected this document, holding:

“The letter being typed, supposedly written by a poor farmer, appears to be crafted after the fact. The contents are entirely self-serving and seem prepared only to justify the execution of the Will. It confers no benefit on the defendant and is devoid of credibility.”

The Court emphasized that no real reason was provided for why Buddhsen would disinherit his own family in favour of an outsider, especially when he had no other property, and the land in question was his sole source of livelihood.

“Will Was Executed Under Suspicious Circumstances — Propounder Failed to Dispel the Grave Doubts”

The Will (Ex.D-2) was declared invalid not merely on technicalities, but due to the presence of grave and unexplained suspicious circumstances, such as:

• The Will conferred the entire property to a non-relative from a different caste.
• The reason cited in the Will — that the defendant’s family once helped the testator — was found fabricated and exaggerated.
• There was a gap of nearly 1.5 years between execution and notarization of the Will, which remained unexplained.
• No reason was recorded in the Will for disinheriting wife and children.
• Witnesses to the Will were closely associated with the defendant, and one was found to have been dismissed from government service for misappropriation, affecting their credibility.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Aadiwekka v. Hanmavva Kom Venkatesh, the Court reiterated:

“Where a Will excludes the wife and children, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to explain the suspicious circumstances. The very exclusion, if unexplained, renders the Will unenforceable.”

The High Court noted that the Will was typed and allegedly brought by the testator along with attesting witnesses, which appeared orchestrated and contrived. The claim that Buddhsen, a poor man, personally managed the drafting, witnesses, and notarization process without assistance was found improbable and manufactured.

“Even If the Land Once Belonged to the Raja’s Family, It Does Not Give the Defendant Any Right to Claim It by Will”

A central defence raised was that the land originally belonged to the Raja Sahab’s family, and since the defendant belonged to that lineage, Buddhsen merely returned what was given to him.

The Court rejected this reasoning as both legally untenable and factually unsupported:

“Even assuming the land came from the Raja Sahab’s family, that does not create any right of reversion or entitlement through Will. Once granted, it became Buddhsen’s property, and only his legal heirs could succeed unless a valid Will is established.”

The Court held that such a justification could be used to exploit vulnerable individuals and encouraged a dangerous precedent, observing:

“If such reasoning is accepted, every poor person can be made to transfer his sole property to powerful people on the pretext of past favours.”

“Trial Court’s Judgment Is Sound and Based on Legal and Factual Analysis — No Interference Warranted”

Affirming the trial court’s findings, Justice Bisen concluded:

“The trial court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that the Will, mutation, and sale deed were all tainted with suspicion, fabricated reasoning, and lacked legal efficacy. There is no perversity or legal infirmity in the judgment under challenge.”

Accordingly, the first appeal was dismissed, and the decree declaring the Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation order, and sale deed as null and void was upheld. The plaintiffs’ right to title and possession over the disputed land was reaffirmed.

Date of Decision: 15 January 2026