Will Mentions Land Not Yet Purchased? That Itself Casts a Dark Shadow on Its Validity: Bombay High Court Dismisses Probate Claim Over Muslim Testator’s Estate

"When Two Wills Look Identical Word for Word, Suspicion Isn't a Guess—It’s a Legal Certainty" - In a compelling verdict blending questions of personal law, testamentary capacity, and religious identity, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed a plea for probate and letter of administration filed by a Hindu man who claimed the entire estate of a deceased Muslim preacher based on two disputed Wills.
High Court found the Wills "riddled with suspicious circumstances that remain unresolved", and held that the respondents, being natural heirs under Muslim law, were entitled to heirship and succession certificates for both movable and immovable properties.
"A Will Can’t Give What the Testator Didn't Own"
Delivering the judgment, Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar made a striking observation:
"How in the Will executed in the year 2013, there is reference of land purchased after six months?"
The Court was referring to Gut No.2, a parcel of land mentioned in the Will dated 11.12.2013, despite records showing it was purchased only on 12.05.2014. The judge concluded that “the appellant failed to remove suspicious circumstances as regards mention of land Gut No.2 in Will dated 11.12.2013.”
This single contradiction, the Court implied, undermined the credibility of the entire document.
The Claimant’s Story: A Religious Bond or a Legal Ambush?
Sunil Shinde, the appellant, portrayed himself not just as a caretaker but as “a family member by bond, not blood”, stating that Tajuddin Noor Mohammad Shaikh, though born Muslim, had embraced Hindu traditions, even becoming a renowned Kirtankar.
He alleged that Tajuddin lived with his family from the age of 18, and in return, had executed two Wills (2013 and 2020) in his favor—bequeathing all his properties and fixed deposits.
But the Court was not persuaded.
“There is nothing to show his conversion to Hinduism,” the judgment clarified, firmly rejecting any claims that Tajuddin had legally renounced Islam.
Further, the fact that “his last rites were performed as per Muslim rituals, and a dome was constructed by his family,” reinforced that the deceased remained Muslim until death.
“Two Wills, Identical in Font and Word” — Too Good to Be True?
Perhaps the most damning detail came from the Court’s scrutiny of the two Wills themselves.
“Will of 2013 and 2020 are word to word same and use same font… No explanation is coming forward as to how both Wills are similar as to print and font.”
In essence, the Court viewed the mechanical replication of the Wills as not a coincidence but a strong indicator of fabrication, stating that such similarity was “not normally expected of a normal person.”
“A Muslim Cannot Bequeath Beyond One-Third”: Legal Limits Reinforced
Another vital legal point that sealed the appellant’s fate was the restriction under Muslim personal law. Quoting from Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, the Court reiterated:
“A Muslim cannot Will for more than one-third of his estate without consent of other heirs.”
The Court emphasized that even if the Will had been proven valid, the bequest would still be limited to one-third, and only with the consent of other heirs—consent that was neither sought nor given.
“Heirs Need Not Be Disinherited by Fiction”: Heirship and Succession Rights Upheld In affirming the rights of Tajuddin's legal heirs, the Court ruled:
“Respondents are natural successors of Tajuddin Shaikh… particularly when it is held that appellant failed to prove valid execution of Will.”
The Court thereby upheld the Trial Court’s issuance of heirship and succession certificates to respondent Ali Shan and others and dismissed the First Appeals filed by Sunil Shinde.
The judgment is a significant reiteration of long-standing principles governing testamentary succession under personal law, burden of proof on will propounders, and judicial skepticism in the face of suspiciously perfect documents.
“When circumstances are not normal or normally expected of a normal person, it would be termed as suspicious circumstances,” the Court said, invoking the Supreme Court’s precedent in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee.
Sunil Shinde’s attempt to inherit an entire estate through backdated and identically typed Wills has thus been squarely rejected, and the Court sent a clear message:
Heirship cannot be defeated by documents that raise more questions than they answer.
 

Date of Decision: 17 April 2025