The Distinction Between Valid Execution and Genuineness of Wills: A New Clarification from the Supreme Court of India

1. Introduction

The case of Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho (2025 INSC 7) presented a significant question regarding the complex interplay between establishing that a will has been validly executed and determining whether that will is “genuine” in the eyes of the law. This dispute involved the last will of the deceased, Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho, who purportedly bequeathed her properties to her children in equal shares. The respondent, Ms. Myra Philomena Coalho, sought Letters of Administration (LoA) to execute this will. However, objections were raised by another heir, leading to numerous proceedings before a Single Judge, a Division Bench at the High Court of Bombay, and ultimately the Supreme Court of India.

The key legal issue to be resolved was whether a finding that a will is validly executed (i.e., signed by the testator in accordance with the prescribed procedural requirements) inevitably implies that the will must be treated as genuine and free of suspicious circumstances. The Supreme Court’s answer has significant implications for testamentary law in India.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The impugned judgment under review was issued by the Division Bench of the High Court, which had reversed a Single Judge’s dismissal of the suit. The Single Judge had concluded that, although the will was validly executed, certain “suspicious circumstances” persisted, preventing the court from granting LoA. By contrast, the Division Bench observed that after a finding of valid execution, it was no longer necessary to dwell on suspicious circumstances.

The Supreme Court, however, set aside the Division Bench’s approach. It clarified that establishing a will’s procedural validity does not end the inquiry. Courts must still turn their attention to resolving whether any suspicious factors undermine the will’s genuineness. The matter was ultimately remanded back to the Division Bench for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to evaluate both elements: (a) whether the will was validly executed; and (b) whether the suspicious circumstances, if any, stand explained by the propounder of the will to the court’s satisfaction.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied upon and reaffirmed existing case law that underscores the dual aspects of will execution and genuineness. Among the authorities referenced were:

Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors. - This case re-emphasized the legal requirement for due execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Derek A.C. Lobo & Ors. v. Ulric M.A. Lobo (Dead) by LRS. - Clarified that mere registration or facial compliance with technical formalities is insufficient; courts must examine the entirety of evidence to exclude suspicious factors.
Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad - Highlighted that satisfying the technical mandates of execution does not conclusively establish that a will is free from questions of undue influence, fraud, or coercion.

These precedents collectively illustrate that a propounder of the will has the burden of dispelling any suspicious circumstances after proving that the basic statutory requirements have been met.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court dissected the fine difference between:

Valid Execution: Compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., proving that the testator duly signed the will in the presence of witnesses.
Genuineness: Confirming that the will reflects the true and unaffected wishes of the testator, absent undue influence, fraud, coercion, or other suspicious circumstances.

The Court emphasized that merely showing that a testator affixed their signature and that procedural formalities were followed does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of suspicious circumstances. The Single Judge in the High Court recognized that although the will looked validly executed, there were unresolved concerns (or “suspicious circumstances”) that the propounder failed to adequately dispel.

The Division Bench’s mistake, as identified by the Supreme Court, lay in conflating the two concepts. The Bench erroneously presumed that a finding of valid execution necessarily establishes genuineness. The Supreme Court noted that the Single Judge had never given a final finding of “genuineness,” but merely of “valid execution.” Therefore, the presence of suspicious circumstances remained an open issue, demanding thorough judicial scrutiny.

C. Impact

This judgment has significant ramifications for testamentary matters:

Heightened Scrutiny in Will Disputes: Courts are encouraged to adopt a two-stage analysis, where they must first examine procedural validity and then ascertain if the will is genuinely free of any suspicious conditions.
Clear Burden on Propounders: After proving valid execution, the proponents of a will must continue to demonstrate that no suspicious elements undermine the testator's true intentions.
Guidance to Lower Courts: The ruling affirms that even if evidence suggests formal compliance, the court must proceed to address any red flags that cast doubt on the will’s authenticity.
Protection of Testators’ Wishes: This approach prevents unscrupulous actions from being legitimized simply because formal legalities are satisfied, safeguarding the genuine desires of testators.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

In testamentary law, the phrase “shrouded in suspicious circumstances” refers to situations where the court senses that, although the documents may look procedurally correct, there could be deeper issues—such as undue influence, pressure, or manipulation exerted upon the testator. A validly executed will might still be set aside if the propounder of that will cannot address those doubts to the satisfaction of the court.

Meanwhile, Letters of Administration (LoA) is a court-issued order that grants a person the legal authority to administer the estate of someone who has died. When the will is disputed, as in this case, the litigant must not only demonstrate correct execution but also show that the will is indeed reflective of the testator’s free and voluntary intentions.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho clarifies an important facet of Indian testamentary jurisprudence: establishing that a will fulfills the technical requirements for valid execution does not preclude a court from investigating and, if necessary, rejecting the will on grounds of suspicious or coercive circumstances.

By remanding the matter back to the High Court’s Division Bench, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that the court’s duty is to ensure, as far as possible, that the will truly reflects the testator’s intentions. This fresh examination will require the High Court to carefully evaluate the evidence relating to suspicious factors surrounding the will’s creation. In turn, the judgment functions as a critical milestone in preventing misuse of testamentary instruments and helps maintain public faith in the resolution of will-related disputes.

In summary, this decision underscores the dual-layered protection that Indian law provides to testatorial freedom—requiring both valid execution and an unclouded, genuine expression of the deceased’s wishes. The Supreme Court’s stance helps shape the methodology courts must adopt in analyzing will-related proceedings, which has broader implications for practitioners and litigants involved in estate planning and succession disputes in India.