1. Dispute over land ownership involving competing claims of registered wills executed by the original owner. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 605
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Jeevan Reddy : R.M.Sahai : S.P.Bharucha
Kehar Singh
Versus
Malkiat Singh
Case No. : 518 of 1976
Date of Decision : 9/4/92
A subsequent will cannot revoke a prior genuine will if the subsequent document is found to be not genuine or executed under suspicious circumstances that the propounder fails to dispel.
Headnote:(A) Law of Wills - Genuineness of Will - Revocation of Will by subsequent Will - Where a subsequent will is found to be not genuine, the earlier genuine registered will remains valid and the claim of revocation cannot be sustained, even in the absence of a specific recital of revocation in the subsequent document. (Para 2)
(B) Suspicious Circumstances - Execution of a will under suspicious circumstances which are not successfully dispelled by the propounder leads to the conclusion that the document is not genuine. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose over the ownership of land where two competing registered wills were presented. The first registered will was executed in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant claimed ownership based on a subsequent registered will and argued that this subsequent will revoked the earlier one. To support this, the appellant relied on a power of attorney executed on the date of the alleged second will, suggesting it implied the non-existence of the earlier will.
Findings of Court:
Three lower courts found that the first registered will in favor of the plaintiff was genuine. Conversely, the subsequent will in favor of the appellant was found to be not genuine and executed under suspicious circumstances that were not dispelled. The court noted that since a prior power of attorney already existed in favor of the appellant, there was no occasion to execute a second one, suggesting the document was prepared for a specific purpose.
Issues: Whether a subsequent registered will, found to be not genuine and executed under suspicious circumstances, can revoke a prior genuine registered will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the lack of genuineness of the subsequent will were sound. A will executed under suspicious circumstances that are not dispelled cannot be treated as a valid document to revoke a previously executed genuine will.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a subsequent registered will revokes a prior will even in the absence of an express revocation clause. (Para 2 )
3. The subsequent will was found non-genuine and executed under suspicious circumstances, which the appellant failed to dispel. (Para 2 )
4. A subsequent will does not revoke a prior genuine will if the subsequent instrument is found to be non-genuine. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does a subsequent registered will automatically revoke a previous will without an express revocation clause?
The court held that a subsequent will cannot revoke a prior genuine will if the subsequent instrument is found to be non-genuine. (Para 2 )
7. What is the effect of suspicious circumstances on the validity of a will?
A will executed under suspicious circumstances that are not successfully dispelled may be held non-genuine, thereby failing to revoke a prior genuine will. (Para 2 )
8. Can the execution of a power of attorney be used to infer the non-existence of a prior will?
No, if the power of attorney is found to be redundant or prepared for a specific purpose, it cannot be used to infer the non-existence of a prior genuine will. (Para 2 )
(1) THIS is an appeal by grant of special leave petition by transferees of the land in dispute from one Kehar Singh who is said to have been the owner of it as a will was executed in his favour by one Bachna Singh, the admitted owner of the property. All the three courts including have held against the appellant. It has been found that Bachna had executed a registered will in favour of plaintiff which was genuine, therefore, he was entitled to a decree for possession.
(2) IT is urged that Bachna Singh having executed a subsequent registered will in favour of the appellant the earlier will in law stood revoked even in absence of any recital to that effect in the will itself. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the findings of fact recorded by all the courts that the will in favour of the appellant was not genuine. Reliance is placed on Ex. D-3, the power of attorney, executed by Bachna Singh in favour of the appellant on the day the will is said to have been executed and it is urged that since the right to sell the property in dispute was given to the appellant, an inference should be drawn against the existence of any earlier will. Although Ex. D-3 does not appear to have been referred as such either before the first appellate court or the second appellate court but the trial court found that since earlier power of attorney executed by Bachna Singh existed in favour of the appellant there could be no occasion to execute a second one. From this an inference was drawn that subsequent power of attorney said to have been executed by Bachna Singh was a document prepared for the specific purpose. The trial court further found that the will in favour of the appellant appeared to be executed in suspicious circumstances which could not be successfully dispelled by the appellant. It could not be pointed out that the circumstances on which reliance was placed for recording the finding were irrelevant. Therefore, the orders of the three courts below cannot be assailed.
(3) IN the circumstances we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
