Heightened Scrutiny of Unregistered Wills in the Presence of Suspicious Circumstances

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors. (2025 INSC 10) dealt with a multifaceted property dispute. The litigants were members of a family whose patriarch, Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, had executed a partition deed that brought about a division of his properties among his first wife, his children from the first wife, and himself. Subsequently, the defendants (i.e., the second wife and her sons) claimed entitlement to the entire property of the patriarch by virtue of an unregistered Will. This Will was challenged on grounds of forgery and suspicious circumstances by the plaintiffs (the first wife and her children).

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this matter clarifies important legal principles associated with establishing the validity of an unregistered Will when suspicion arises over the testator’s awareness or mental capacity, and particularly when one of the beneficiaries allegedly played an active role in securing the Will’s execution.

The key issues involved:

• The validity of an unregistered Will allegedly executed by the family patriarch in favor of the second wife and her children.
• The concurrent rulings of the lower courts rejecting the Will as invalid due to suspicious circumstances.
• The share entitlements of the first wife and her children in the patriarch’s properties.

Summary of the Judgment

The Trial Court originally decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the Will produced by the defendants was invalid. On appeal, the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) concurred and dismissed the defendants’ appeal, confirming the Trial Court’s decision that the Will was not proved to be genuine.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the apex court scrutinized whether the Will dated 06.04.1990 was validly executed and free from suspicious circumstances. The Court concluded that the defendants had not proven the Will’s authenticity under the required statutory provisions, particularly given the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the two lower courts and confirmed that the children of the second wife (although born out of a marriage considered invalid on account of the subsisting first marriage) nevertheless each retained a 1/7^th share in the self-acquired properties of the deceased.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

In evaluating the Will, the Court cited and reiterated principles laid down in:

• Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo (Dead) by LRS. (2023 SCC OnLine 1893; 2023 INSC 1093)
  This case established that the mere act of providing evidence of a Will’s execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not suffice if suspicious circumstances remain unaddressed. The onus is on the propounder to dispel any doubts regarding the testator’s volition or understanding of the Will’s contents.
• Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead) Through LRs. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1488; 2023 INSC 1004)
  The Court reaffirmed that the unregistered status of a Will does not inherently invalidate it, but it increases the burden on the propounder to establish its free and conscious execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

These precedents support a long-standing line of authority requiring thorough scrutiny when there appears to be an involvement of beneficiaries in the procurement or drafting of the Will, or when the testator’s health and knowledge of the Will’s contents are questionable.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act:
The Court emphasized that for an unprivileged Will to be valid, it must be signed by the testator, or someone at the testator’s direction, in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses. While the defendants claimed to have complied with these conditions, the Court observed several inconsistencies:

• The testator’s signature and the identity of those who procured the stamp papers raised doubts about the testator’s complete independence in creating the Will.
• Conflicting statements from the beneficiary (DW1) and her co-attesting witness (DW2, who was also her brother) cast further suspicion on whether the testator truly executed the Will with full knowledge and free from external influence.

2. Suspicious Circumstances:
The Court identified numerous “suspicious circumstances,” including:

• The First Defendant (DW1), herself a primary beneficiary, purchased the stamp papers on which the Will was typed, yet denied any role in the Will’s execution.
• Discrepancies over the testator’s medical condition: one part of the Will suggests he was fully conscious, while another acknowledges serious heart ailments.
• Contradictory evidence as to the exact location of the Will’s execution—whether it was at Madurai or Tenkasi, and whether the testator lived there at the time.
• The absence of a clear reading out or explanation of the Will’s content to the testator, combined with the non-examination of other potentially relevant witnesses such as the scribe or notary.

As per established jurisprudence, when suspicious circumstances are shown, the propounder must remove them with clear and convincing evidence. The Court determined that the defendants did not successfully rebut these doubts.

C. Impact

This decision has significant implications for future testamentary disputes:

• Proof Burden on Propounders: The Court highlights the strict requirements for proving a Will where suspicious factors surface. Beneficiaries must present substantial evidence, including any explanation for unusual circumstances.
• Scrutiny of Unregistered Wills: While registration is not mandatory, an unregistered Will faces greater scrutiny. Parties relying on it should ensure unassailable proof of the testator’s knowledge and intention.
• Family Property Distribution: Even children born out of a marriage considered invalid (as the bigamous marriage here) retain inheritance rights under statutory provisions if the property is self-acquired by the father. The onus remains on the defendants to prove a contradictory testamentary document if they wish to overturn these inheritance rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Unregistered Will”: A Will need not be registered like other legal documents. However, an unregistered Will often requires stricter proof that it was signed by the testator in sound mind and free from undue influence.

2. “Suspicious Circumstances”: This legal term refers to any fact that raises a genuine question about whether the testator executed the Will voluntarily and with full comprehension. Examples include unexplained changes in the testator’s signature, active involvement of a beneficiary, unusual place of execution, contradictions about the testator’s health, or unexplained alterations to estate distribution.

3. “Burden of Proof”: Even though claimants of a Will must prove its execution under the Indian Evidence Act, once any suspicious element is introduced, the onus shifts back to the claimant to dispel doubts. Hence, the propounder must continuously meet a high evidentiary standard to validate the Will’s genuineness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores a foundational precept in testamentary law: if a Will is challenged on grounds of suspicious circumstances, the person who seeks to rely on that Will has a heightened obligation to show that the Will was executed freely, knowingly, and in strict compliance with statutory requirements.

In Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., the defendants’ failure to address inconsistencies and dispel suspicion about the testator’s involvement effectively invalidated the Will. Although the testator’s second wife and her children were recognized as heirs to some extent (because illegitimate status does not necessarily extinguish inheritance rights), they could not claim the entire property based on an unproven testamentary document. This ruling firmly reiterates that Courts will look beyond mere formal compliance in Will execution, instead focusing on the Will’s authenticity and the testator’s intention.