Registered Will Prevails as MP High Court Rejects Later Unregistered Will Citing 'Suspicious Circumstances' Under Succession Act - 2025-08-06

Registered Will Upheld as MP High Court Finds Later Will Shrouded in Suspicion

Gwalior, MP – The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a significant judgment, has affirmed that a registered will holds a strong presumption of correctness, and the burden to disprove it or prove a subsequent will lies heavily on the party making such a claim. Justice G. S. Ahluwalia, while dismissing a second appeal in Bhav Singh vs Harisingh , upheld the concurrent findings of two lower courts, validating a registered will from 1985 over a later, notarized will from 2002 that was found to be surrounded by "serious and suspicious circumstances."

The court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, Harisingh, reinforcing the stringent requirements for proving a will under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolved around the property of the late Gyasiya, who died in November 2002. The plaintiff, Harisingh (respondent), claimed ownership based on a registered will dated June 6, 1985 (Exhibit P-2), executed by his uncle Gyasiya, who had no children and lived with Harisingh's family.

The defendants, Bhav Singh and others (appellants), contested this claim, propounding a subsequent notarized will dated October 12, 2002 (Exhibit D-1). This later will purportedly cancelled all previous wills and divided the property among all nephews, including the plaintiff and defendants.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had both ruled in favour of Harisingh, finding that the 1985 registered will was duly proven, while the 2002 will was not. The defendants then filed a second appeal before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants argued that the 2002 will explicitly revoked the earlier 1985 will. They contended that registration of the first will did not make it irrevocable and that their evidence proved the testator, Gyasiya, was in a fit state of mind when he executed the second will.

The respondent maintained that the 1985 will was validly executed and registered, and the defendants had failed to prove the authenticity of the 2002 will, which was shrouded in suspicion.

Court's Analysis: Proving a Will and Suspicious Circumstances

Justice Ahluwalia undertook a detailed examination of the law on proving wills, citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh . The court reiterated that the propounder of a will has the solemn duty to prove: -

The testator signed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. -

The testator understood the contents and signed of their own free will. -

The will was properly attested as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. -

All legitimate suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution are removed to satisfy the court's conscience.

On the 1985 Registered Will (Exhibit P-2): The High Court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven the 1985 will. Both attesting witnesses, Ghasiram (PW-5) and Gyanchand Jain (PW-2), testified consistently that the will was read over to Gyasiya, who was "hale and hearty," and that he affixed his thumb impression before them and the Sub-Registrar. The court noted:

"Since Will is a registered one, therefore, it contains an additional presumption with regard to its correctness... Furthermore, testator remained alive for a period of 17 years after the execution of Will dated 06.06.1985."

On the 2002 Notarized Will (Exhibit D-1): In contrast, the court found the execution of the 2002 will to be riddled with inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances. The judgment highlighted several critical flaws: -

Testator's Health: The will was executed on October 12, 2002, just over a month before Gyasiya's death on November 21, 2002. An attesting witness, Bhura (DW-2), had admitted in a previous statement (Exhibit P-14) that Gyasiya "was not in a position to walk" and was confined to bed at the time. -

Contradictory Testimonies: There were major discrepancies regarding where the will was prepared. Witnesses Bhura (DW-2) and Lallu Singh (DW-3) claimed it was typed at Narwar by the advocate, Girraj Kishore Maheshwari (DW-5). However, the advocate himself claimed he prepared it in a hut outside Gyasiya's house. The court pointed out the logistical impossibility of a typed will being prepared in a village hut without a typewriter. -

Lack of Instructions from Testator: The will was not prepared on instructions from Gyasiya. The advocate testified he was approached by others, creating doubt about whether the document reflected the testator’s true intentions. -

Suspicious Refusal to Attest: One proposed attesting witness, Khet Singh, refused to sign the will, a "suspicious circumstance" that the defendants failed to explain. -

Beneficiary's Role: One of the attesting witnesses, Lallu Singh (DW-3), was the brother-in-law of the beneficiaries (Bhav Singh and Sahab Singh), indicating a potential conflict of interest.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the defendants had "failed to prove the execution of Will dated 12.10.2002," the High Court held that its revocation clause was inconsequential. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decrees of the lower courts that established Harisingh as the rightful owner based on the 1985 registered will.

The judgment serves as a strong reminder that while a later will can revoke an earlier one, it must first be proven as a valid testament free from suspicion. Registration of a will provides a significant evidentiary advantage, and overcoming it requires cogent, consistent, and convincing evidence that satisfies the conscience of the court.