The Telangana High Court has firmly established that the burden of proving a will's authenticity lies entirely on its propounder, who must dispel all legitimate doubts to satisfy the court's conscience. A division bench comprising Justice K Lakshman and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao delivered this ruling while dismissing an appeal concerning a disputed will allegedly executed in 1964.
Case Background: Family Dispute Over Property
The case revolved around a G+1 house built on 275 square yards in the Feelkhana area of Hyderabad. The dispute arose between Dr Prabhuji Patange, a city-based medical practitioner, and his sisters, Dr Amrutha and Dr Asha, over a will claimed to have been executed by their late father, Krishnarao Patange, a cloth merchant and moneylender. Dr Patange argued that his father had left an unregistered will granting their mother a restricted life interest in the property, with absolute ownership passing to him after her death.
Dr Patange claimed he discovered the sealed document in an almirah only after his mother's demise in 1999. When his sisters refused to vacate the first floor, he filed a title suit, which was dismissed by a city civil court in 2006. The sisters branded the will a forgery, emphasizing that their father was healthy in 1964 with no reason to draft such a document, and pointed out that Dr Patange initiated litigation nearly 23 years after their father's death in 1979.
High Court Observations: Suspicious Circumstances
Delivering judgment recently, the High Court noted several suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. One daughter's name was omitted entirely from the document. Properties mentioned in the will were later sold by the father himself. Additionally, the document remained undiscovered for two decades after Krishnarao Patange's death. The bench also observed that all three attesting witnesses had died. Although Dr Patange summoned the son of one witness to verify handwriting, discrepancies in surnames emerged. The appellant further failed to seek expert biometric opinions or provide contemporaneous signatures for comparison.
Legal Principle: Burden on Propounder
The court reiterated that the propounder of a will must remove all suspicious circumstances to satisfy the judicial conscience. According to the bench, the propounder bears the onus to prove the will's genuineness, especially when the document is surrounded by doubts. In this case, the suspicious elements remained unresolved, leading the court to confirm the lower court's well-reasoned decree. The appeal was dismissed with no grounds to disturb the earlier decision.
This ruling reinforces the legal standard that unregistered wills, particularly those discovered long after the testator's death, require rigorous scrutiny. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of timely disclosure and credible evidence in will disputes.
