LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will d...Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will does not by itself remove suspicious circumstances or dispense with the obligation of the propounder to establish its genuineness. Even a registered Will must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court where suspicious features exist. (Paras 17–18, 32)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Will—Registration—Effect. Registration of a Will d...: advocatemmmohan Case: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors. Citation: 2026 INSC 669 | Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016 Headnotes Will—P...



Case: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 669 | Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016

Headnotes

  1. Will—Proof—Burden of proof—Propounder.
    The burden of proving a Will lies upon its propounder. Proof of execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act is only the first step. The propounder must further satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the Will represents the free and conscious testamentary act of the testator. (Paras 27–32)
  2. Will—Suspicious circumstances—Duty of propounder.
    Where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the propounder must satisfactorily explain such circumstances and dispel all legitimate doubts before the Will can be accepted as genuine. Mere formal proof of execution is insufficient. (Paras 28–32, 38–40)
  3. Will—Meaning of "suspicious circumstances".
    Suspicious circumstances include any legitimate circumstance creating doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will, such as unjust exclusion of natural heirs, unnatural disposition, doubtful execution, participation of beneficiaries, unexplained alterations or any circumstance inconsistent with the normal course of human conduct. Such suspicion must be real and not the product of conjecture or fanciful imagination. (Paras 30–32, 38–40)
  4. Will—Disinheritance of wife—Suspicious circumstance.
    Where a testator disinherits his wife, who had cordial relations with him and cared for him throughout his lifetime, in favour of distant relatives or strangers without convincing justification, such exclusion constitutes a significant suspicious circumstance requiring satisfactory explanation. (Paras 41–45)
  5. Will—Reasons assigned in testament—Court's scrutiny.
    Although a testator is not legally bound to record reasons for making a bequest, where reasons are stated in the Will, the Court is entitled to examine whether they are genuine or merely a facade to justify an otherwise suspicious disposition. (Paras 43–45)
  6. Will—Registration—Effect.
    Registration of a Will does not by itself remove suspicious circumstances or dispense with the obligation of the propounder to establish its genuineness. Even a registered Will must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court where suspicious features exist. (Paras 17–18, 32)
  7. Will—Unexplained alterations in registration endorsement.
    Material and unexplained cuttings or alterations in the registration endorsement, particularly regarding the identity of the executant, constitute serious suspicious circumstances. Failure to explain such alterations may justify rejection of the Will. (Paras 14, 40)
  8. Civil Procedure—Admissions—Alternative pleadings.
    A plaintiff may raise inconsistent or alternative pleas. An alternative plea that a Will is vitiated by fraud, undue influence or coercion does not amount to an admission of its execution where the principal plea is that no Will was ever executed. (Paras 35–37)
  9. Evidence—Admissions—Doctrine of non-traverse.
    Facts specifically pleaded in the plaint and not specifically denied in the written statement stand admitted under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and ordinarily require no further proof. (Paras 37)
  10. Evidence—Failure of plaintiff to enter witness box.
    Where the plaintiff's title is founded upon admitted facts and the defendant seeks to defeat that title by propounding a Will, mere non-examination of the plaintiff or other witnesses does not relieve the propounder of the burden of proving the Will in accordance with law. (Paras 37–38)
  11. Second Appeal—Section 100 CPC—Concurrent findings regarding suspicious circumstances.
    Findings regarding existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will and the sufficiency of their explanation are primarily findings of fact. Interference in second appeal is impermissible unless a substantial question of law genuinely arises. (Issue 4; Paras 25, 32 and subsequent discussion)
  12. Will—Judicial conscience—Governing principle.
    In cases involving disputed Wills, the ultimate test is whether the evidence inspires confidence and satisfies the judicial conscience of the Court that the testament truly represents the free and informed intention of the testator. (Paras 28–32, 38–40)

Cases Referred

  • H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma
  • Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb
  • Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur
  • Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti
  • Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa
  • Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coelho
  • Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage