The Supreme Court has ruled that if a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, mere examination of attesting witnesses is not enough proof of its genuineness. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan stated that in such cases, the propounder must discharge an additional burden of dispelling doubts and satisfying the judicial conscience that the document truly represents the free and informed wishes of the testator.
Background of the Case
Reversing a Himachal Pradesh High Court verdict, the Bench on July 6 set aside the bequeathing of a property based on a 1974 Will executed by an illiterate agriculturist testator who could only thumb mark the document. The top court concluded that the Will in question was disputed and the defendants failed to dispel legitimate doubts surrounding it.
The trial court and the first appellate court had discarded the Will due to several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. However, the high court reversed these concurrent findings and upheld the Will, holding that when attestation is duly proved by the attesting witness, its execution stands proved, and being a registered document, the Will cannot be discarded.
Supreme Court's Reasoning
While deciding an appeal filed by Sardari Lal, the Supreme Court did not endorse the high court's views. Allowing the appeal, the top court said, “The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court is affirmed.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said, “Proof of Will is not just an exercise to prove the signature of the testator on the Will and its attestation in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act; rather it is an exercise to satisfy the Court’s conscience that the testator had signed the Will with free will being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will.”
Suspicious Circumstances Defined
The top court noted that where there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, the propounder must explain those circumstances and dispel all reasonable doubts. Judicial pronouncements have left the phrase ‘suspicious circumstances’ open-ended to encompass any circumstance that creates doubt about the Will being an expression of the testator's free will, though it would not include a figment of imagination or fantasy of a doubting mind.
The court listed examples of such doubt, including a shaky or doubtful signature of the testator; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of legal heirs, particularly dependents; and an active or leading part played by the beneficiary in making of the Will.
Impact of the Ruling
This ruling reinforces the principle that the burden of proof on the propounder of a Will is higher when suspicious circumstances exist. It emphasizes that registration of a Will does not automatically dispel doubts, and courts must scrutinize the circumstances to ensure the testator's true intentions. The decision sets a precedent for future cases involving disputed Wills, particularly those executed by illiterate or vulnerable testators.
