A will executed under the Indian Succession Act does not require reasons for unequal bequests, provided it is duly executed and free from suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present two Appeals arise from separate orders passed on the same date and concern the same Appellant, Ms. Priya Jain, daughter of late Shri Davinder Kumar Jain [hereinafter referred to as “DKJ”].

2. FAO(OS) 82/2025 assails the Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in TEST. CAS. 54/2014, whereby probate of an alleged Will dated 11.12.2004 [hereinafter referred to as “Will”], purportedly executed by DKJ, was granted in favour of one of its named executors, Mr. Sanjay Kalra. The Appellant challenges the validity of the Will, alleging that it is forged and fabricated, and consequently disputes the grant of probate.

3. RFA(OS) 47/2025 assails the Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 3156/2015, whereby the Appellant’s suit for partition, declaration, rendition of accounts, mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of DKJ’s estate was dismissed. It was held that in view of the grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 11.12.2004, the partition suit had become infructuous.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both Appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the facts are primarily drawn from FAO (OS) No. 82/2025, titled Priya Jain v. State and Others .

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5. The parties are members of the same family, and the dispute centres on the estate of DKJ, who passed away on 18.03.2014. For clarity, the genealogy of the parties is set out below before adverting to the rival contentions.

6. The Appellant, DKJ’s youngest daughter, asserts that the Appellant died intestate and alleges that the Will is forged and has not been duly proved.

7. In contrast, Smt. Usha Jain, widow of DKJ, claims exclusive ownership of the estate based on the Will, an eight-page document, each bearing the signature of DKJ.

8. The Single Judge, after examining the evidence, held that the execution of the Will was duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as “ISA”] read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as “IEA”]. One of the attesting witnesses, PW-2, Mr. Mahesh Gupta, testified before the Court in support of the Will. It was also found that the propounder had sufficiently explained the alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Further, it was held that the non-joinder/non-appearance of the co-executor was not fatal in view of Sections 224 and 311 of the ISA, and that no adverse inference arose from the principal beneficiary not entering the witness box.

9. In light of the aforesaid factual background, the Single Judge vide order dated 27.05.2025 in TEST.CAS. 54/2014 granted probate of the Will in favour of Mr. Sanjay Kalra. Consequentially, by order of even date in CS(OS) 3156/2015, the partition suit was dismissed as infructuous, the intestacy claim yielding to the testamentary disposition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

10. The following submissions were made by learned senior counsel representing the Appellant:-

(i) The Will does not disclose any reason for excluding all the children, particularly the two unmarried daughters, from substantial bequests.

(ii) DKJ ordinar