Attestation and Registration Do Not Cure a Suspicious Will: Section 100 CPC Limits Where an Illiterate Testator Disinherits the Sole Class I Heir

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court in SARDARI LAL v. BISHAN DASS, 2026 INSC 669, restored the concurrent decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which had rejected a registered Will allegedly executed by an illiterate agriculturist, late Chhajju Ram, in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff, his widow, claimed that he died intestate and that she was his sole surviving Class I heir.

The central issue was whether the defendants had proved the Will in a manner that satisfied the Court’s judicial conscience, especially when the Will disinherited the testator’s widow and contained unexplained suspicious features, including incorrect recitals and uninitialed cuttings in the registration endorsement.

The High Court, in second appeal, had reversed the concurrent findings and upheld the Will. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the suspicious circumstances found by the courts below were real and germane, not imaginary.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The plaintiff-widow claimed ownership and possession by intestate succession.
  • The defendants relied on a registered Will dated 06.11.1974, allegedly executed by Chhajju Ram.
  • The Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected the Will as suspicious and decreed the suit in favour of the widow.
  • The High Court reversed those findings in second appeal, holding that execution was proved through one attesting witness and that registration supported the Will.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the decree in favour of the plaintiff’s legal representative.

The Court held that proof of attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is only the first step. Where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must remove them and satisfy the Court that the Will was the free and conscious act of the testator.

3. Analysis

3.1 Core Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court emphasized four major principles:

  1. Burden on propounder: The person relying on a Will must prove its valid execution and, where suspicion exists, must explain the suspicious circumstances.
  2. Formal proof is not enough: Examination of one attesting witness may satisfy the statutory mode of proof, but it does not automatically establish genuineness if the Will appears unnatural or doubtful.
  3. Illiterate testator requires closer scrutiny: Since Chhajju Ram was illiterate and could only thumb-mark documents, the Court required stronger assurance that the contents were read over and understood by him.
  4. Second appeal cannot reappreciate factual findings: The existence of suspicious circumstances is generally a question of fact. Unless the lower courts rely on imaginary suspicions or apply the law incorrectly, the High Court cannot interfere under Section 100 CPC.

3.2 Suspicious Circumstances Identified

The Supreme Court upheld the following suspicious circumstances:

  • The Will disinherited the testator’s widow, who was his sole Class I heir.
  • The beneficiaries were not proved to be close relatives, despite the Will describing them as nephews.
  • The Will stated that the beneficiaries looked after the testator and his wife, but evidence showed that the wife cared for the testator and that the parties lived separately.
  • The testator was illiterate, making incorrect recitals in the Will particularly significant.
  • The registration endorsement contained unexplained cuttings: the name “Laxmi Kant Basi” was struck off and replaced with “Chhajju”, without initials of the Sub-Registrar.

The Court clarified that the mere fact that attesting witnesses were not from the testator’s village was not, by itself, a material suspicious circumstance. However, the other circumstances were sufficient to reject the Will.

3.3 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Authorities on Proof of Wills and Suspicious Circumstances

  • H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors.
    This foundational precedent was central to the judgment. It establishes that the propounder of a Will must prove due execution and remove suspicious circumstances. The Supreme Court relied on this principle to hold that the defendants could not merely prove attestation; they also had to satisfy the Court’s conscience.
  • Rani Purnima Debi & Anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb & Anr.
    This case summarized the law that, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, proof of testamentary capacity and signature may suffice. But where suspicion exists, the burden remains on the propounder. The Court used this to frame the governing test.
  • Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased) through LRs & Ors.
    Cited for the settled proposition that suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will must be cleared by the propounder before the Will can be accepted.
  • Smt Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur
    The Court relied on this authority for the proposition that where execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, the matter becomes one of judicial conscience rather than a simple adversarial dispute.
  • Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v. Smt. Chhoti and Ors.
    This case was important because it states that genuineness of a Will cannot be judged only from the propounder’s witnesses; the Court may look at the document, surrounding circumstances, and inherent improbabilities.
  • Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasappa & Ors.
    The Court used this precedent to define “suspicious circumstances” as real, germane and valid circumstances, not mere fantasies of a doubting mind. It also reaffirmed that unjust exclusion of natural heirs may be suspicious.
  • Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho
    Cited to reinforce that even where formal execution is proved, the Court has an “irrecusable duty” to call upon the propounder to remove suspicious circumstances.
  • Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur & Ors.
    Referred to for the statutory requirements of proving a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Authorities Distinguished or Applied on Facts

  • Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage
    The respondents relied heavily on this case to argue that suspicion cannot replace proof. The Supreme Court distinguished it. In that case, the challenger was a stranger and trespasser, and the legatee was close to the testator. Here, the challenger was the widow and sole Class I heir, while the beneficiaries were not close relatives.
  • Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors.
    This case was cited for the rule that unequal distribution under a Will is not automatically suspicious. The Supreme Court distinguished it because, in Sridevi, the testator had not totally excluded heirs without explanation. In the present case, the widow was completely disinherited in favour of non-relatives.
  • Rur Singh (Dead) Thru LRs & Ors. v. Bachan Kaur, Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors., and Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr.
    These were relied upon in support of the modern line of Will jurisprudence requiring careful scrutiny where natural heirs are excluded and suspicious circumstances exist.

Authorities on Pleadings, Admissions and Alternative Pleas

  • Srinivas Ram Kumar Firm v. Mahabir Prasad & Ors.
    The Court relied on this case to hold that a plaintiff may take alternative and even inconsistent pleas. Therefore, the plaintiff’s plea that the Will was bogus and, alternatively, affected by fraud or undue influence did not amount to an admission of execution.
  • Vikrant Kapila & Anr. v. Pankaja Panda & Ors.
    Cited for the principle that an admission must be clear, unequivocal and unconditional. The plaintiff’s alternative pleading was not treated as an admission that the Will had been executed.

Authorities on Section 100 CPC and Substantial Question of Law

  • Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    This classic precedent defines what constitutes a substantial question of law. It supported the appellant’s argument that factual findings on suspicious circumstances could not be reopened in second appeal unless a true legal question arose.
  • Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors. and Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal
    These cases reinforce the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction and the prohibition against reappreciating evidence under Section 100 CPC.
  • Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors.
    Cited for the proposition that what amounts to a suspicious circumstance in a Will case is generally a question of fact.
  • Mansinghrao Yeshwant Rao Patil & Ors. v. Ramchandra Govindrao Patil & Ors.
    The Court relied on this decision to clarify that the phrase “conscience of the Court” does not convert a factual inquiry into a question of law.

Respondents’ Additional Authorities

  • Mohd. Yunus v. Gurubux Singh, Krishna Mohan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) Thru LRs. & Ors. v. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) Thru LRs & Ors., and Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
    These authorities were invoked by the respondents to support interference where findings are affected by legal error, burden of proof, or mixed questions of law and fact. The Supreme Court accepted the general principle but held that this case involved real factual suspicious circumstances, properly evaluated by the lower courts.

3.4 Impact of the Judgment

This judgment has significant consequences for Will litigation and second appeals:

  • Registered Wills are not immune: Registration is relevant but not conclusive. If the registration endorsement itself is doubtful, its evidentiary value is weakened.
  • Illiterate testators require stronger proof: Where the testator could not read the document, the propounder must show that the contents were properly explained and understood.
  • Unnatural exclusion of dependents matters: Disinheriting a spouse or sole Class I heir in favour of non-relatives is a serious circumstance requiring explanation.
  • High Courts must respect factual findings: In second appeal, concurrent findings rejecting a Will cannot be overturned merely because another view is possible.
  • Drafting accuracy is crucial: Incorrect recitals in a Will, especially about relationships or reasons for exclusion, may become strong evidence of suspicion.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Propounder of a Will
The person who relies on and seeks to prove the Will.
Suspicious circumstances
Facts that create genuine doubt about whether the Will was freely and knowingly executed, such as exclusion of natural heirs, doubtful signatures, active role of beneficiaries, or incorrect recitals.
Judicial conscience
A standard requiring the Court to be satisfied that the Will truly represents the testator’s free intention.
Class I heir
A primary legal heir under Hindu succession law. A widow is a Class I heir.
Doctrine of non-traverse
If a defendant does not specifically deny a factual allegation in the plaint, that fact may be treated as admitted.
Section 100 CPC
It limits second appeals to substantial questions of law. High Courts cannot normally reassess evidence or disturb factual findings.
Mutation
An entry in revenue records. It does not by itself create title; it reflects possession or succession for revenue purposes.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that proving a Will is not a mechanical exercise. Attestation and registration may satisfy formal requirements, but where the Will is surrounded by real suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove those doubts.

The decisive principle is that a Will by an illiterate testator, disinheriting his sole Class I heir in favour of non-relatives, containing incorrect recitals and supported by doubtful registration endorsements, cannot be accepted merely because one attesting witness proves signatures or thumb impressions.

The judgment also strengthens the limits on second appellate interference: factual findings on suspicious circumstances, when reasoned and grounded in evidence, cannot be reversed under Section 100 CPC.