If Will Is A Registered Document, There Is A Presumption Regarding Its Genuineness: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that if a Will is a registered document, there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof.

The Court held thus in Civil Appeals arising out of rival claims of the legal representatives of the deceased over a chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas located at village Dasnapur.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions. The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it.”

The Bench added that as the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof.

Facts of the Case

The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna died intestate prior to 1949. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna married Narsamma and from their wedlock, two children namely Muthaiah (Defendant) and Rajamma were born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of M. Rajanna who contracted second marriage with Lasum Bai (Plaintiff) who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna expired in the year 1983 and his daughter Rajamma also died intestate on which, a dispute over the right to property arose between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As per the Plaintiff, M. Rajanna anticipated the disputes between her and his son from the 1st marriage i.e., Defendant and to avoid, the same, he made an oral family arrangement distributing his properties. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Will in favour of the Plaintiff recognizing the share of Defendant in the joint family properties. The said Will was registered in 1974. The Plaintiff sold two acres of land from her purported share to a person vide registered sale deed in 1987.

The said registered sale deed was never questioned before any forum and remained unchallenged. The Plaintiff had entered into another agreement for selling her remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas land to another person. Aggrieved by this agreement, the Defendant filed an injunction suit, restraining the Plaintiff from selling the properties which came to her share under the registered Will. The said injunction suit was decreed in favour of the Defendant and then the Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her title over the properties. The Defendant set up a case in his written statement that the properties were joint ancestral properties and as Rajanna died in 1983, he became the sole co-parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Plaintiff’s suit was decreed and hence, the Defendant filed an Appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which partly allowed the same and set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment holding that the Defendant was entitled to 3/4th share and Plaintiff to only 1/4th share. Resultantly, legal representatives approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will.”

The Court was of the view that the Trial Court was right in holding that M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will in 1974 and so also the oral family settlement.

“We are of the view that the evidence available on record fortifies the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement which is countenanced by the factum of the possession of the suit schedule properties including the disputed property, which was admittedly with the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser i.e., Janardhan Reddy”, it further said.

The Court observed that the genuineness of the Will is beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M. Rajanna to the Plaintiff, but it also grants a lion’s share of the property to the Defendant.

“Had it been the intention of M. Rajanna to deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defendant Muthaiah could have been left out completely from gaining any benefits under the Will”, it also remarked.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, held that the Trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff and granting her absolute rights over the suit schedule properties including the disputed property admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold vide registered sale deed in 1994.

“The view taken by the trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law. … The High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit schedule properties”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Plaintiff’s Appeal, dismissed that of the Defendant, and reversed the High Court’s Judgment.

Cause Title- Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(D) By LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 879)

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, AORs Anjani Aiyagari, Guntur Prabhakar, Alakh Alok Srivastava, and Advocate Rishabh Bafna.

Click here to read/download the Judgment