Posthumous Registration Is Legally Valid; Does Not In Itself Render ‘Will’ Suspicious: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that the posthumous registration is legally valid, and does not, in itself, render the Will suspicious.

The Court held thus in Miscellaneous First Appeals filed against the common Order of the Senior Civil Judge under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar observed, “In the present case, the Will bears the signature of the testator and is a registered document. The fact of a posthumous registration is legally valid, and does not, in itself, render the Will suspicious. The findings of the Trial Court that, the Will is "dubious" for having been registered after the death, demonstrate a flawed understanding of statutory provisions and run counter to the established principles of testamentary law.”

The Bench held that the Judge overlooked the statutory presumption that a registered Will carries evidentiary value and that its validity can only be rebutted by concrete evidence during the course of trial, not by surmise at the interlocutory stage.

Senior Advocate M.R. Rajagopal and Advocate Thilakraj S.V. represented the Appellant while Advocate Keshav R. Agnihotri represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

Three interlocutory applications were filed by the Defendants (Appellants) seeking to restrain the Plaintiff from interfering with his fencing activity on the suit schedule property. The Respondent/Plaintiff sought injunctive reliefs against the Appellants. The Trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s Application and allowed those Applications filed by the Plaintiff, directing the parties to maintain status quo while also granting liberty to the Plaintiff to erect fencing. The Trial Court expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will produced by the Appellant, primarily on the ground that it had been registered several months after the death of the testator. Being aggrieved by this, the Appellant was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “The expression "no document other than a Will" is central to understanding the legislative intent. By expressly excluding Wills from the limitation period stipulated under this provision, the legislature has called out a specific exception recognizing the unique nature of testamentary instruments. Further, Section 27 of the Registration Act deals with the time for registration when a document affects immovable property contains a proviso, that reinforces this position; "provided that a Will may be presented at any time.”

The Court enunciated that Wills are not subject to the four months limitation period applicable to other documents, and may be registered either before or after the death of the testator and the statute, thus, acknowledges the optional and non-compulsory nature of a Will registration and permits its registration at any point in time, without prejudice to its validity.

“In the instant case, the Will was registered after the death of the testator as permitted under the above provisions. There is no statutory requirement that a Will must be registered within the lifetime of the testator. In fact, the registration of a Will is not even mandatory under Indian law”, it further held.

The Court, therefore, held that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and proceeds on incorrect interpretation of the Registration Act, 1908.

“The registration of the Will dated 02.05.2018 after the death of Sri. K. Vishwanatha is permissible under Sections 23 and 27 of the Act, and in no way diminishes its probative value or authenticity unless otherwise disproved in trial by cogent evidence. In the present case, the Will dated 02.05.2018 is a registered document and the fact that it was registered after the death of the testator does not, in and of itself, render it invalid or suspicious”, it added.

The Court observed that the Trial Court, by relying exclusively on the delay in registration, elevated a procedural aspect into a substantive defect, thereby misapplying the Registration Act and casting unwarranted doubt on the Will without examining its execution, attestation or surrounding circumstances.

“Moreover, the Trial Court ignored the fact that, a registered Will carries a presumption of genuineness and the burden of disproving it lies on the party alleging its validity. This presumption is rebuttable but cannot be discarded on the basis of delay alone, especially when there is no statutory bar or limitation period governing the registration of the Wills. This misapplication of law has serious consequences, as it formed the primary ground on which the Trial Court rejected the appellant's application for injunction (I.A.No.3) and allowed the plaintiff's application (I.A.Nos.4 and 5)”, it also observed.

Furthermore, the Court remarked that by declaring the Will "dubious" at the interlocutory stage, the Trial Court ventured into the midst of the document, effectively prejudging an issue that ought to be tried in full evidence.

“This amounts to a jurisdictional error, as Courts dealing with interlocutory reliefs must confine themselves to assessing i. Prima facie case. ii. Balance of convenience and iii. Irreparable loss”, it emphasised.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that final adjudication on title, genuineness of a Will, or legitimacy of heirs cannot be made at this stage, particularly in a suit for partition.

“The Trial Court's approach is internally inconsistent. While acknowledging that the suit properties are subject to a partition claim and that both the parties are allegedly in joint possession, it proceeded to grant exclusive interlocutory to one party, thereby creating an imbalance in the status quo. The settled position of law is that an injunction should not be granted against a co-sharer, except in exceptional cases, and certainly not when the issue of relationship and legitimacy itself is partly contested between the parties”, it added.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in treating the posthumous registration of the Will as indicative of fraud, when infact the Registration Act permits such registration and does not prescribe any outer limit for it.

“The Will ought to be tested in trial based on evidence, not presumed to be false at the stage of deciding the interlocutory applications. In view of the facts and circumstances and also the material produced by both the parties, this Court is satisfied that, the rejection of I.A.No.3 and the grant of reliefs in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 are untenable”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals and directed that both the sides shall maintain status quo in respect of possession, use and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit.

Cause Title- M.D. Devamma v. K.V. Kalavathi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:24420)

Click here to read/download the Judgment