Finding About Will Suffering From Suspicious Circumstances Would Be A Finding Of Fact, Unless Perverse: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).

The Karnataka High Court observed that the finding about Will suffering from suspicious circumstances would be a finding of fact, unless perverse.
The Court observed thus in a Regular Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).
A Single Bench of Justice Ravi V. Hosmani enunciated, “… in B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 449, it is held, there exists distinction between well founded and bare suspicion and Court must not start with suspicion and close its mind to find truth as resolute impenetrable incredulity is not demanded even if there exists circumstances of grave suspicion. But scrutiny in an appeal under Section 100 of CPC would be limited only to substantial question of law. Normally, finding about Will suffering from suspicious circumstances would be a finding of fact, unless perverse.”
The Bench reiterated that, in order to sustain claim under Will, propounder is not only required to establish due compliance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), but also explain away all suspicious circumstances shrouding Will.
Advocate K.K. Vasanth appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate S. Basavaraj and Advocate Goutham A.R. appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellants were the Defendants in a Suit filed by the Respondents i.e., the Plaintiffs for declaration of a Will registered and executed by their father in respect of suit properties as null and void. They also sought to declare that the Plaintiffs are entitled for 1/10th share of properties and for partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs’ share in eastern portion. They further sought to enter their names in revenue records and to appoint Commissioner to divide their share by metes and bounds.
As the Defendants had got their names entered in revenue records and were in hurry to sell away properties worth Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs for mere 2 to 2½ lakhs of rupees, contrary to subsequent Will and right of Plaintiffs for 1/10th share each, the Suit was filed. The Defendants alleged that the Will was forged and concocted and they claimed to have become owners of properties. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit and being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs filed an Appeal on various grounds. The First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment. Therefore, the Defendants were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Therefore, it has to be examined, whether finding of first appellate Court about validity of Ex.D7 was based on assessment of all material on record or was contrary to material on record.”
The Court said that there is no dispute about law that ‘attestation’, meant signing of document to signify that attestor is witness to execution of said document.
“… as per Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925, attesting witness was one who signs document in presence of executant after seeing execution of document or after receiving personal acknowledgment from executant about execution of document, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 554”, it added.
The Court, therefore, said that the conclusion by the First Appellate Court cannot be held to be perverse. Hence, it answered the substantial question of law in affirmative.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- M.H. Anjinappa & Ors. v. Late Doddakka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:153)