Ramesh Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Ram Singh vs Hitler Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. Smt. Parwati Bai Verma

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Execution and attestation of Will - Suspicious circumstances - Where a Will deprives the immediate legal heirs of the property without strong and irrefutable reasons, and the beneficiary is a non-relative of significantly higher social and financial status, such circumstances render the Will unreliable and unnatural. (Paras 19, 20, 22)

(B) Burden of Proof - In cases where ownership is claimed on the basis of a Will, the burden lies on the propounder to prove the Will beyond doubt, especially when the execution is surrounded by suspicions. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The legal heirs of a deceased landowner filed a suit to declare a Will, a subsequent mutation order, and a sale deed executed by the legatee in favor of a third party as null and void. The legatee claimed ownership based on a Will allegedly executed by the deceased. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. An appeal was preferred against this decree by the legatee and the subsequent purchaser.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the reasons provided in the Will for bequeathing the property to a non-relative appeared fabricated. The evidence regarding the execution of the Will was found to be unnatural. The testator was a person of limited means, while the legatee was an influential person of a different social background. The exclusion of the wife and children from inheritance without a valid reason established strong suspicious circumstances that the propounder failed to explain.

Issues: Whether the Will was validly executed and whether the exclusion of the legal heirs without sufficient reason created suspicious circumstances that invalidated the title of the legatee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of suspicious circumstances, particularly the deprivation of the spouse and children of inheritance in favor of a powerful non-relative, is sufficient to conclude that the Will has not been duly proved. When the evidence is unnatural and the reason for excluding legal heirs is improbable, the Will cannot be accepted as genuine.

Result: first appeal is dismissed

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. First appeal against decree declaring will null and void due to suspicious circumstances — Testator excluded legal heirs in favor of unrelated beneficiary. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Appellants argued will was validly executed and attested; respondents supported trial court's finding of suspicious circumstances. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )

3. First appeal dismissed, upholding trial court's decree declaring will null and void and ordering return of possession. (Para 24 , 25 )

4. What standard of proof is required to prove a will when suspicious circumstances exist?

The propounder must prove the will beyond doubt and explain all suspicious circumstances, especially when the testator excludes natural heirs. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )

5. Does execution of a will by a poor testator in favor of a wealthy non-relative, depriving legal heirs, constitute suspicious circumstances?

Yes, such facts are highly unnatural and create strong suspicion that the will was obtained under pressure or fabricated, requiring rigorous scrutiny. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 )

6. Can a typed letter purportedly written by the testator be relied upon to justify a will?

A typed letter that appears fabricated and prepared later to justify the will cannot be given any probative weight. (Para 15 )

7. Is the presence of suspicious circumstances alone sufficient to conclude that a will is not duly proved?

Yes, according to Supreme Court precedent, the presence of suspicious circumstances by itself is sufficient to hold that execution of the will has not been duly proved. (Para 22 )

JUDGMENT :

Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard finally at motion stage.

2. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendant No.1 and 2 challenging judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 passed by First Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.24-A/1999, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs for declaring the will dated 18.09.1985 as null and void, declaring mutation order in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of Will as null and void and declaring sale deed dated 29.02.1990 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and for return of possession of the suit land.

3. Learned counsel for appellants/defendant No.1 and 2 submitted that on 23.12.1994, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit contending, inter alia, that plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2 to 4 and that they all are legal heirs of Buddhsen. Buddhsen was the owner of the suit land, who died on 09.01.1988 leaving behind plaintiffs as his legal representatives. Buddhsen remained in the possession of suit land during his lifetime and after his death plaintiffs being his legal representatives continued in possession of the suit land. There was no dispute with regard to the title or possession, they did not immediately carried the mutation of their names. However, in September, 1992 when they approached revenue authority for mutation, then they came to know that the name of defendant No.1 Ramesh Pratap Singh had already been mutated on 30.05.1988 on the basis of an alleged Will said to be executed by Buddhsen. Based on this mutation entry, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 29.02.1992 in favour of defendant No.2 illegally, took possession of the suit land and started construction over it.

4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegation and contending that plaintiffs were always aware of Will dated 18.09.1985 executed by Buddhsen in favour of defendant No.1 Ramesh Pratap Singh and for this reason they never initiated mutation proceeding after death of Buddhsen, it was submitted that the Will dated 18.09.1985 and consequent mutation order dated 30.05.1988 passed on the basis of the Will were valid as during the mutation proceeding publication was carried and one of the plaintiff namely Patia Bai appeared and did her signature giving consent to the mutation, which demonstrate that plaintiffs had knowledge of the mutation, the defendant No.1 being lawful owner of the suit land and validly executed the sale deed dated 29.02.1992 in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 did not illegally took possession of the suit land. The defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement asserting that he possessed the suit land along with other lands from defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 29.02.1992 and has been in possession even since. It was further contended that the plaintiffs had knowledge of mutation in favour of defendant No.1.

5. The trial Court framed the issue and taking evidence of both the parties, passed the impugned judgment and decree on 10.11.2000 and suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the execution and attestation of the Will dated 18.09.1985 Ex.D-2 has been established with the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the Will as forged one, the trial Court ought to have given effect to it and held that plaintiffs though nearest heirs of Buddhsen have not right over title and possession of the suit land. As per Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of who has seen the testator sign to the Will and each witness has signed the Will in presence of testator. The Will is proved by examining at least one attesting witness, who proves its execution (Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.
Ramesh Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Ram Singh And Another - Appellants
Versus
Hitler Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. Smt. Parwati Bai Verma And Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 833 of 2000
Decided On : 15-01-2026

A Will that deprives legal heirs of inheritance without strong, irrefutable reasons, especially when bequeathed to a non-relative under suspicious circumstances, is unenforceable. The propounder must remove all suspicions to establish the validity of the Will.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What standard of proof is required to prove a will when suspicious circumstances exist?

5. Does execution of a will by a poor testator in favor of a wealthy non-relative, depriving legal heirs, constitute suspicious circumstances?

6. Can a typed letter purportedly written by the testator be relied upon to justify a will?

7. Is the presence of suspicious circumstances alone sufficient to conclude that a will is not duly proved?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURRatnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.Ramesh Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Ram Singh And Another - AppellantsVersusHitler Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. Smt. Parwati Bai Verma And Others – RespondentsFirst Appeal No. 833 of 2000Decided On : 15-01-2026

A Will that deprives legal heirs of inheritance without strong, irrefutable reasons, especially when bequeathed to a non-relative under suspicious circumstances, is unenforceable. The propounder must remove all suspicions to establish the validity of the Will.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What standard of proof is required to prove a will when suspicious circumstances exist?

5. Does execution of a will by a poor testator in favor of a wealthy non-relative, depriving legal heirs, constitute suspicious circumstances?

6. Can a typed letter purportedly written by the testator be relied upon to justify a will?

7. Is the presence of suspicious circumstances alone sufficient to conclude that a will is not duly proved?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.
Ramesh Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Ram Singh And Another - Appellants
Versus
Hitler Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. Smt. Parwati Bai Verma And Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 833 of 2000
Decided On : 15-01-2026