Wills can only be revoked under Section 70 of the Succession Act- Supreme Court

According to the Supreme Court, a will can only be revoked in accordance with the methods listed in Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act and cannot be withdrawn by consent.

The basic requirements of Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act that must be met in a case concerning the issue of revocation of a will by a subsequent agreement were defined by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay.S.Oka.

Mangilal, who owned land, made a will on May 6, 2009, leaving some of it to his daughter Ramkanya and some of it to Suresh, Prakash, and Dilip, the sons of his brother. Following that, Suresh and Ramkanya made an arrangement on May 12, 2009, whereby they divided the land among themselves. Ramkanya signed a deed in February 2011 selling Badrilal—the current appellant—her share of the property.

The Trial Judge ruled that although Suresh and Ramkanya's agreement was valid and enforceable, Ramkanya lacked the legal right to sell the property as a result. The trial judge further declared that the February 2011 selling deed is invalid and does not bind Suresh.

With regard to the right and title of Suresh, the District Court dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant and modified the trial judge's ruling by holding that the sale deed dated February 21, 2011, was invalid. In the contested decision of the MP High Court's Single Judge, the appellant's second appeal was dismissed.

The agreement dated May 2009 will equate to revocation of the Will dated May 6, 2009, especially as Clause No. 8 of the agreement states that the Will previously executed by Mangilal stands cancelled, according to the ruling written by Justice A.S. Oka. In light of S.70 of the Indian Succession Act, which deals with the revocation of unprivileged Wills, the Court addresses the factual issue.

The Court emphasised that, in accordance with S.70, revocation may be accomplished in one of the following ways:

Other Will or Codicil Execution a document signed by the testator that expresses a desire to revoke the will and is performed in the same way as an unprivileged will must be.

by the testator, or by someone acting under his control and presence, burning, ripping, or otherwise destroying the same with the intent to revoke it. (Para 10)

In light of the aforementioned methods of revocation, the Court observes that Mangilal's will was neither cancelled by the execution of another will, nor was it destroyed or burned by Mangilal or someone else in accordance with his stated instructions.

However, despite the fact that Mangilal's earlier Will was cancelled by clause no. 8 of the agreement, he is not listed as a party to the agreement and just his thumbprint can be found on the third page of the agreement in the left margin. The agreement dated May 12, 2009 only lists Suresh and Ramkanya as parties, and the thumbprint of Mangilal that appears on the third page of the document is not attested by two witnesses as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. As a result, the court came to the conclusion that the will dated May 6, 2009 is not affected by the agreement dated May 12, 2009.

Regarding the agreement's legality, the court determined that it cannot transfer the property to Suresh and Ramkanya because it is neither a registered document nor a sale deed signed by Mangilal.

The court made it clear that Ramkanya's sale deed, dated February 21, 2011, was only valid for the area that Badrialal, the appellant, obtained through her will, dated may 6, 2009, and that area only.

Badrilal Vs Suresh & Ors