A Will is invalid if the propounder fails to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. Mere registration does not prove validity; consistent evidence from attesting witnesses is mandatory under the law, and proof of free volition is essential, especially when excluding natural legal heirs.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 67, 68 and 69 - Will - Execution and attestation - Burden of proof - A registered Will does not automatically confer validity; it must comply with requirements of attestation and be free from suspicious circumstances - Propounder has the onus to dispel suspicions, especially where a Will excludes legal heirs, is executed during litigation, and the evidence of attesting witnesses is inconsistent - Court can reject a Will if surrounding circumstances indicate it is not the free volition of the testator. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Concurrent findings - When lower courts have correctly appreciated evidence and established that a Will is suspicious based on fact, an appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by law. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
Partition suit filed by legal heirs of a deceased family member. The main contest involved the validity of a registered Will executed by the head of the household in favor of specific individuals, excluding other natural legal heirs. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the Will as invalid due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, inconsistent testimony by the scribe and attesting witnesses, and the testator’s advanced age and living conditions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the mere registration of a Will does not grant it immunity from judicial scrutiny. The propounder failed to prove the Will in accordance with mandatory legal requirements. The testimony of witnesses was contradictory and did not establish that the Will was executed with a sound mind or that the contents were understood and accepted by the testator.

Issues: Whether a registered Will remains valid if the surrounding circumstances are suspicious and if the mandatory evidentiary requirements for proof of due execution were satisfied by the propounders.

Ratio Decidendi: A Will must be proved by satisfying the judicial conscience that the document is genuine and executed by the testator of their own free will. When suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must provide clear evidence to dispel them. Failure to explain the exclusion of natural heirs, contradiction in witness statements, and the absence of consistent evidence regarding the signing process invalidate the instrument.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.2,3,4 and 7 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.8/1987 and appellants before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.16/1997.

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.8/1987 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.16/1997.

The respondent Nos.4 to 7 in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b), 5 and 6 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.8/1987 and they were the respondent Nos.4 to 7 before the learned Frist Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.16/1997.

3. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7 belong to one family.

Defendant No.1 Satya Narayan Joshi had 4 children i.e. two sons and two daughters, namely, Girija, Gokulananda Joshi (defendant No.2), Parbati (defendant No.1(a)) and Rebati (defendant No.1(b)).

Girija died leaving behind his widow wife Nidhi Priya Joshi (Plaintiff No.3) and two sons i.e. Prakash (plaintiff No.1) and Pradeep (plaintiff No.2).

Kanakalata Joshi (defendant No.7) is the widow wife of Gokulananda (defendant No.2). Subash (defendant No.3) and Ashis (defendant No.4) are the two sons of Gokulananda (defendant No.2).

In order to have an instant reference, the family pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7 is depicted hereunder;

Satya Narayan Joshi (D. No.1)
Late Girija	Gokulananda (D.No.2)	Parbati (D.No.1(a))	Rebati (D. No.1(b))
Nidhi Priya (P. No.3)	Kanakalata (D. No.7)(wife)
Prakash (P.No.1), Pradeep (P. No.2)	Subash (D. No.3), Ashis (D. No.4)

4. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.8/1987 was a suit for partition. The properties described in Schedule of the plaint are the suit properties.

Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against Satya Narayan Joshi (defendant No.1) along with defendant No.2. When during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 (Satya Narayan Joshi) expired, then, in his place, his two daughters i.e. defendant Nos.1 (a) and 1(b) were substituted. Subsequent thereto, defendant Nos.3,4 and 7 were impleaded.

According to the plaintiffs, suit properties are their joint and undivided ancestral properties. The suit properties have not been partitioned/divided between them i.e. plaintiffs and defendants at any point of time through any metes and bounds partition. The plaintiffs being the successors of the first son of the deceased defendant No.1 (Satya Narayan Joshi) i.e. Girija Shankar Joshi, they (plaintiffs) are entitled to the share of their predecessor Girija Shankar Joshi in the suit properties. When the defendant Nos.1 & 2 did not accept the proposal of the plaintiffs for partition of the suit properties, then, they (plaintiffs) filed the suit vide T.S. No.8/1987 against the defendants praying for partition of their legitimate share from the suit properties.

5. The defendant Nos.1,2,3,4 & 7 contested the suit of the plaintiffs by filing their joint written statement as well as additional written statement taking their stands that, the suit properties originally belonged to one Dinabandhu Joshi (father of the defendant No.1). The said Dinabandhu Joshi surrendered to the suit properties to the State and thereafter, the suit properties were settled in the name of the wife of the defendant No.1 i.e. in the name of Janaka Kumari Joshi.

The wife of the defendant No.1 relinquished her right in the suit properties and prayed before the revenue authorities for recording the same in the name of defendant No.1 (Satya Narayan Joshi). During Mukharjee Settlement, separate R.o.R of the suit properties were prepared in favour of the defendant No.1 (Satya Narayan Joshi). For which, the suit properties are the self-acquired prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6556

Cases Referred (5)