Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass
“Disinheriting a Widow for Distant Relatives: Supreme Court Says the Propounder Must Dispel Suspicious Circumstances Around a Will”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court restored the decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that had declared a widow the owner of her late husband's property, setting aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had upheld a registered will in favour of non-close relatives. The Court held that proof of a will is not confined to proving the testator's signature and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must satisfy the conscience of the Court. Here the testator was an illiterate agriculturist, the sole Class I heir (his wife) was disinherited in favour of non-relatives, the will contained incorrect recitals, and uninitialled cuttings on the registration endorsement deprived the propounders of the benefit of registration. The Court also held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in interfering with the first appellate court's well-reasoned findings of fact.
The Bottom Line
A will is not accepted just because an attesting witness says it was signed. When a will cuts out the testator's only heir, his wife, in favour of people who are not close relatives, and its recitals turn out to be wrong, those who rely on it must explain the doubts to the satisfaction of the court. The Supreme Court found that they had not, and held that the High Court should not have disturbed the findings of the courts below in a second appeal. The widow's ownership and possession were upheld.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Date of the Disputed Will
The defendants claim that Chhajju executed a registered will on this date bequeathing his property to them.
Date of the Disputed Will
The defendants claim that Chhajju executed a registered will on this date bequeathing his property to them.
Death of Chhajju
According to the plaint, Chhajju died intestate and without issue on this date.
Death of Chhajju
According to the plaint, Chhajju died intestate and without issue on this date.
Mutation No. 66 Sanctioned
The defendants got the revenue records mutated in their favour on the basis of the will.
Mutation No. 66 Sanctioned
The defendants got the revenue records mutated in their favour on the basis of the will.
High Court Restores First Appeal
In RSA No. 295/2002 the High Court set aside the first appellate judgment, restored the appeal to its original number and ordered fresh consideration.
High Court Restores First Appeal
In RSA No. 295/2002 the High Court set aside the first appellate judgment, restored the appeal to its original number and ordered fresh consideration.
Sardari Lal Brought on Record
The First Appellate Court allowed Sardari Lal's application and brought him on record as legal heir of the original plaintiff.
Sardari Lal Brought on Record
The First Appellate Court allowed Sardari Lal's application and brought him on record as legal heir of the original plaintiff.
High Court Allows Second Appeal
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 475/2003 set aside the decrees of the two courts below and dismissed the suit.
High Court Allows Second Appeal
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 475/2003 set aside the decrees of the two courts below and dismissed the suit.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
The Story
Bhambo Devi, wife of Chhajju, filed Civil Suit No. 51/1993 against Bishan Dass (Respondent No. 1) and Ram Singh (now represented by Respondent Nos. 2 to 54), seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner and in possession of the property left by her late husband Chhajju Ram, along with a prohibitory injunction and, alternatively, possession. Her case was that Chhajju, an illiterate agriculturist and sole owner of the suit property, died intestate on 05.02.1992 leaving no issue, so she was his sole heir. The defendants, she said, had obtained mutation No. 66 on 14.08.1992 on the strength of a forged will dated 06.11.1974, which she described as an act of fraud and undue influence.
The defendants claimed that on 06.11.1974 Chhajju had executed a registered will bequeathing all his movable and immovable property to them, in a sound state of mind, out of love and affection and as a reward for services to him and the plaintiff. They said the plaintiff knew of the will, raised no objection and that the suit was instigated by her relatives. It was undisputed that Chhajju Ram was the original owner and an illiterate agriculturist, and that, absent a will, the plaintiff would be his sole successor.
The defendants examined Ram Singh (DW-1), Hariram (DW-2), an attesting witness who was a former Pradhan, and Shanti Lal (DW-3), who identified the signature of the deceased scribe. The Trial Court found the will shrouded in suspicion: the plaintiff was excluded on the vague ground that she had ornaments and cash; there were cuttings on the Sub-Registrar's endorsement at the back of the will changing the name from Laxmi Kant Bassi to Chhajju Ram without initials; and there was no explanation for the services allegedly rendered. It decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff owner in possession and restraining interference with her possession.
The defendants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 144/1996). During the appeal the plaintiff died, and a dispute arose about who her legal representative was. After the High Court, in RSA No. 295/2002 on 08.11.2002, restored the appeal, the First Appellate Court by order dated 14.08.2003 brought Sardari Lal, the appellant before the Supreme Court, on record as legal heir. The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree, finding that the plaintiff had been disinherited without reason, that the legatees' claimed relationship was not made out, that there was no reason to execute the will in 1974 when the testator lived until 1992, that the other attesting witness was not examined, and that the uninitialled cuttings were unexplained.
In the defendants' Regular Second Appeal No. 475/2003, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by judgment dated 18.07.2016 set aside the decrees and dismissed the suit, holding that the attesting witness had proved execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, that both attesting witnesses need not be examined, that residence in another village was no ground to discard a witness, and that cuttings at the back would not discredit the attestation. Sardari Lal appealed to the Supreme Court, which called for the original will and records.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Admitted facts need no proof and the burden lay on the propounder
The appellant argued that the plaintiff's case that the property belonged to Chhajju Ram and that she was his sole surviving legal heir was not denied in the written statement, so those facts stood proved and no evidence was required from her side. Execution of the will had to be proved by its propounder to the court's judicial conscience.
Suspicious circumstances were not explained
The appellant listed the absence of any reason to disinherit the wife who had cared for the testator, no reason to execute a will in 1974 when he was hale and hearty, the legatees not being in a position to serve him then, the attesting witnesses not being from the testator's village or persons of his confidence, and the uninitialled cuttings on the registration endorsement.
High Court exceeded its Section 100 jurisdiction
Whether a will is genuine and whether suspicious circumstances exist and are explained are questions of fact. The High Court was said to have overturned well-considered findings of fact of two courts below.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Execution was proved through the attesting witness
The respondents argued that the will was proved by the attesting witness, there was no cutting on the front page bearing the thumb impression and signatures, and that a will is not compulsorily registrable. No proper cross-examination had discredited DW-2.
Plaint was self-contradictory and no evidence of fraud was led
The plaint called the will bogus while also pleading fraud, undue influence and importunity. The respondents said this amounted to admitting execution, after which the burden to prove fraud lay on the plaintiff, who neither examined herself nor led evidence of fraud.
Disinheritance alone does not invalidate a will; no jurisdictional excess
The respondents said the testator and his wife were a childless couple who lived with the defendants, who served them, and that mere disinheritance of near ones does not discard an otherwise valid will. They argued the High Court could interfere under Section 100 because the burden was placed on the wrong party.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court first surveyed the law on proof of wills, drawing on Rani Purnima Debi, H. Venkatachala Iyengar, Jaswant Kaur, Kalyan Singh, Shivakumar and Lilian Coelho. It concluded that the burden lies on the propounder, that proof under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act is only the first step, and that where suspicious circumstances arise the propounder must dispel them and satisfy the court that the testator signed with free will and full understanding. On Issues 1 and 2, the Court rejected the respondents' reliance on the alternative plea and on non-examination of the plaintiff, applying the doctrine of non-traverse. On Issue 3, it agreed that disinheriting a caring wife in favour of non-relatives was suspicious and unexplained, and that the timing of the will in 1974 mattered only in conjunction with other circumstances. It disagreed with the first appellate court that the attesting witnesses' residence in another village was material. It then examined the original will and found that the testator was illiterate, the will contained incorrect statements, and the uninitialled cuttings on the Sub-Registrar's endorsement meant the registration could not dispel the doubt. It distinguished Madhukar D. Shende and Sridevi on their facts. On Issue 4, it held that the High Court had exceeded its Section 100 jurisdiction.
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
Para 38
Makes clear that attestation proof is only the first step; the court's conscience must be satisfied that the testator acted freely and knowingly.
There is no rule of law that a will must assign reasons for the bequest.
Para 43
A will need not give reasons, but where reasons are given the court can test whether they are truthful.
nothing turns on the choice of an attesting witness or the place of residence of an attesting witness
Para 55
Corrects the first appellate court on one circumstance: the witness's residence is not by itself material unless the witness is shown to be chosen deliberately to prepare a bogus will or does not know the testator.
No doubt, a will is not a compulsorily registerable document. Registration of a will is optional.
Para 59
The Court acknowledges the optional nature of registration but examines whether the registration in this case was regular.
illiteracy of the testator coupled with incorrect statements in the Will raises a serious doubt as to whether the testator executed the Will after fully understanding its content.
Para 63
The decisive combination for an illiterate testator who could only thumb-mark the document.
the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the first appellate court.
Para 70
Confirms that the High Court could not substitute its own view on a question of fact in second appeal.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The plaintiff's side succeeded. The declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property and the injunction against the defendants were restored.
Directions Issued
- The appeal is allowed
- The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is set aside
- The decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court is affirmed
- There shall be no order as to costs
- All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
Key Legal Principles Established
The burden of proving a will lies on its propounder, and proving execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act through Section 68 of the Evidence Act is only the first step.
Where there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must give a cogent and convincing explanation to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the testator signed with free will and understood the dispositions.
A circumstance is suspicious when it is not normal or expected, but the suspicion must be real, germane and valid and not a figment of a doubting mind.
Disinheriting a wife who has been with the testator and had cordial relations with him in favour of a stranger or distant relative raises suspicion.
Where a will assigns reasons, the Court may test whether they are true or put forward only to justify the will.
A plea in the alternative that a will is vitiated by fraud or undue influence does not by itself admit its execution, since an admission must be clear, unequivocal and unconditional.
The existence of suspicious circumstances and their explanation is essentially a question of fact, and a second appellate court under Section 100 CPC should not ordinarily interfere with findings on it.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- A will can be set aside if it contains doubtful features that the people relying on it cannot explain, even if a witness says it was signed.
- A widow who is the only heir of her husband cannot be easily cut out by a will in favour of people who are not close relatives.
- If a person who cannot read signs by thumb impression, it matters that the will was actually understood. Incorrect statements in the will can raise doubts.
- Registering a will helps, but a registration with unexplained, uninitialled cuttings may not remove doubts.
- If you want to challenge a will, you should still plead clearly that it was never executed, and the person relying on the will has to prove it.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 63
Indian Succession Act, 1925
“Prescribes the rules for execution of unprivileged wills, including signature or mark of the testator and attestation by two or more witnesses.”
Relevance: The High Court held that the attesting witness had proved execution under this section; the Supreme Court held that this is only the first step in proving a will.
Section 68
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“Prescribes the mode of proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested, which applies to wills.”
Relevance: Together with Section 63 of the Succession Act it governs the formal proof of a will.
Section 100
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Provides for second appeals to the High Court on a substantial question of law.”
Relevance: The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded this jurisdiction in interfering with findings of fact of the first appellate court.
Order VIII Rule 5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, shall be taken to be admitted.”
Relevance: Applied to hold that the plaintiff's marriage to Chhajju, his ownership and her status as sole Class I heir stood admitted.
Sections 32, 34, 35, 52, 58, 59, 60
Registration Act, 1908
“Provisions on who may present documents, the registering officer's duty to enquire into execution and identity, the endorsements required and the certificate of registration.”
Relevance: The Court held that uninitialled cuttings on the Sub-Registrar's endorsement meant it could not be said that the registering officer followed the required procedure.
Related Cases & Precedents
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors.
followedAIR 1959 SC 443
Foundational three-Judge Bench decision on proof of wills, relied on for the propounder's onus and the treatment of suspicious circumstances.
Rani Purnima Debi & Anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb & Anr.
followedAIR 1962 SC 567
Three-Judge Bench decision summarising the law on proof of wills and the onus to explain suspicious circumstances.
Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasappa & Ors.
followed(2021) 11 SCC 277
Three-Judge Bench decision explaining what is a suspicious circumstance and the test of satisfaction of judicial conscience.
Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage
distinguished(2002) 2 SCC 85
Distinguished because the legatee there was the testator's sister's daughter and probably the only heir, and the challenger was a stranger and trespasser.
Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors.
distinguished(2005) 2 SCC 784
Distinguished because there the will gave reasons for unequal distribution among the testator's own children, whereas here the sole Class I heir was entirely deprived in favour of non-relatives.
Mansinghrao Yeshwant Rao Patil & Ors. v. Ramchandra Govindrao Patil & Ors.
followed(1954) 1 SCC 688
Held that phrases like the conscience of the Court being satisfied cannot convert a question of fact into one of law.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector
SLP (Civil) D.No. 42786/2025
Protecting Senior Citizens' Right to Live in Dignity - Eviction of Ungrateful Legal Heirs
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.