Mere Registration Of A Will Would Not Attach To It A Stamp Of Validity: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity.
The Court upheld the Madras High Court’s Judgment which dismissed an Appeal by declining to accept that the execution of the disputed Will was not proved. The Bench upheld the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court, which found the will to be “ shrouded with suspicious circumstances.”
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that "mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act."
AOR A. Lakshminarayanan represented the Appellant, while AOR Vijendra Singh appeared for the Respondents.
The Respondents submitted that the Testator of the Will had executed a partition deed in 1989 dividing his properties into four schedules. The Testator allotted three schedules to his first wife, and their children, while retaining the first schedule properties for himself. Following his death in 1991, a partition suit was filed by the children from the first marriage, seeking a 5/7th share in the retained properties.
The Appellants, the second wife of the deceased and her sons, claimed exclusive rights to the properties under an unregistered Will of 1990. They contended that the Will bequeathed the first schedule properties to them.
The High Court explained that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) provided that there must be at least one attesting witness to examine and prove the execution of a Will.
The Bench stated that the Trial Court rightly held that the propounder of the Will has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the testator signed the Will, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature out of his own free will.
“As noted earlier, the health of testator was in bad condition and if so, the case that the execution of the Will was at a far away place from Madurai is also a matter casting suspicion. Evidently, it was taking into consideration all the aforesaid and such other circumstances that the High Court arrived at the finding that the execution of the Will itself was not proved. The circumstances surrounding the Will were also concurrently held as suspicious,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “In such circumstances, when the findings are concurrent how can the findings on the validity and genuineness of the Will in question by the Trial Court and the High Court be interfered with. There is no reason to hold that the appreciation and findings are absolutely perverse warranting appellate interference by this Court.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 10)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR A. Lakshminarayanan; Advocate A S Raj Narayan
Respondents: AOR Abha R. Sharma
