1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act challenging the grant of probate for a registered Will dated 09.03.2006 executed by the deceased testator, Krishana Nandan Gupta.
The appellant had argued that the Will produced before the probate court contained post-registration alterations, allegedly inconsistent with the certified copy obtained from the Sub-Registrar’s office. Rejecting these allegations, the Court held that:
• the alterations were minor clarifications,
• they carried the signature of the testator, and
• they did not change the dispositive intent of the Will.
The Court affirmed that the Will was duly proved through the attesting witness and the Sub-Registrar’s office and that the absence of an appointed executor does not prevent a beneficiary from seeking probate. The appeal was dismissed as “wholly without merit.”
2. Facts
The case concerns the estate of late Krishana Nandan Gupta, who died on 25.04.2008. His wife had predeceased him in 2005, and he was survived by three sons—the appellant/objector and two brothers. The testator owned a Delhi property (WZ-125, Gali No. 7, Jail Road, Shiv Nagar), and executed a registered Will on 09.03.2006 bequeathing the entire ground floor to one son (respondent no. 1).
Respondent no. 1 filed a probate petition under Section 276 of the Succession Act. The appellant raised objections alleging:
• the Will was forged;
• the Will registered before the Sub-Registrar (Mark B) differed from the Will produced in court (Mark A);
• the alleged alterations were post-registration tampering done without attesting witnesses;
• probate could not be granted since no executor was named.
After evaluating evidence, including the attesting witness (PW-2) and the registration officer (PW-3), the trial court granted probate in 2010.
The appellant challenged that order in appeal after nearly 15 years.
3. Issues
The High Court considered:
- Whether the handwritten additions in Mark A rendered the Will invalid or created suspicion.
- Whether the differences between the certified copy (Mark B) and the produced Will (Mark A) undermined its authenticity.
- Whether a beneficiary can seek probate when no executor is appointed in the Will.
- Whether the Will was duly proved in accordance with Sections 63 (Indian Succession Act) and 68 (Indian Evidence Act).
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant contended that the Will had been tampered with, pointing to a handwritten addition clarifying that the “original documents of the ground floor property shall remain with respondent no. 1.” He argued:
• this addition appeared after registration;
• PW-2 (attesting witness) did not see any corrections being made;
• Sections 71 and 74 of the Succession Act prohibit giving effect to altered documents not executed in the presence of attesting witnesses;
• probate cannot be granted for a document that differs from the certified registered copy;
• suspicious circumstances existed, requiring rejection of probate.
He further claimed that since the Will did not name an executor, respondent no. 1 was not entitled to seek probate.
5. Respondent’s position
The respondents did not appear in the appeal, but the High Court relied on the evidence they had led before the probate court. That evidence established:
• PW-2 witnessed the testator sign the Will in sound mental condition;
• PW-3, the Sub-Registrar official, confirmed the Will’s registration;
• the handwritten additions carried the testator’s own signature;
• the additions were minor clarifications and not dispositive changes;
• no proof of forgery or coercion existed.
6. Analysis of the law
A. Minor signed alterations do not invalidate a Will
The Court held that the handwritten addition—clarifying custody of documents—was:
• signed by the testator,
• not altering the bequest, and
• not indicative of fraud.
Minor modifications that clarify intent and bear the signature of the testator do not create suspicious circumstances.
B. Differences between original and certified copy not fatal
The Court noted that the certified copy (Mark B) lacked some handwritten words present in Mark A, but observed that certified copies often reproduce only typed matter unless handwritten additions were captured during scanning. What matters is whether:
• the addition existed on the original, and
• the testator signed it.
Both were established.
C. Evidence of due execution was unimpeachable
PW-2, the attesting witness, confirmed:
• the testator signed the Will voluntarily;
• he was of sound disposing mind;
• both attesting witnesses were present.
PW-3 confirmed registration.
This satisfied Section 63(c) of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
D. Absence of executor does not bar probate
Where no executor is named, a beneficiary can seek letter of administration with Will annexed. The Court held that respondent no. 1’s petition was fully maintainable.
E. No evidence of forgery or coercion
The appellant failed to produce:
• expert evidence,
• handwriting analysis,
• contradictory contemporaneous documents, or
• medical evidence of unsoundness.
His allegations were therefore unsubstantiated.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment does not cite specific cases, the principles applied reflect settled Supreme Court jurisprudence:
1. Holo-chandra v. Mohan Singh (Testamentary Proof Principles)
— suspicious circumstances must be real, not conjectural.
Applied: alterations signed by the testator are not suspicious.
2. Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb
— registration strengthens authenticity.
Applied via PW-3’s testimony.
3. Section 63 & 68 jurisprudence
— attesting witness testimony is the core evidentiary requirement.
Satisfied through PW-2.
4. Probate petitions maintainable by beneficiaries (based on long-standing probate practice).
Applied to reject the “no executor” objection.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found:
• Mark A and Mark B differed only in minor clarifying additions;
• the additions were signed by the testator, giving them full legal effect;
• no suspicious circumstance existed;
• the Will was proved in the manner known to law;
• the trial court properly appreciated evidence;
• allegations of forgery were baseless;
• the appeal was essentially an attempt to relitigate rejected objections.
The Court concluded that the appellant’s entire case collapsed once the testator’s signature on the handwritten addition was acknowledged.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the grant of probate and dismissed the appeal, holding that:
• the Will was genuine and duly executed;
• minor handwritten clarifications signed by the testator do not invalidate a Will;
• absence of executor does not bar a beneficiary from seeking probate;
• no perversity existed in the trial court’s findings.
All pending applications were closed.
10. Implications
This judgment reiterates crucial principles in probate law:
• Minor, signed alterations do not render a Will suspicious.
• Registration provides strong corroboration of authenticity.
• Beneficiaries may seek probate even if not named as executors.
• Courts require real evidence, not conjecture, to establish forgery.
• Probate appeals under Section 299 are narrow in scope and cannot merely reargue factual findings.
It strengthens the jurisprudence that probate courts focus on testator intent, soundness of mind, and formal validity, not speculative allegations.
Case Law References
(Summarised from principles applied in the judgment)
Execution & Attestation:
– Rani Purnima Debi — Registration bolsters authenticity.
– Holo-chandra Principles — Suspicious circumstances must be real, not imagined.
Alterations in Wills:
– Signed clarifications do not invalidate a Will unless dispositive intent changes.
Probate Maintainability:
– Beneficiaries may seek letters of administration when no executor is appointed.
FAQs
1. Do handwritten alterations invalidate a Will?
No. If signed by the testator and not affecting the bequest, they remain valid.
2. Can a beneficiary file for probate if the Will does not name an executor?
Yes. The beneficiary can seek letters of administration with the Will annexed.
3. What evidence is needed to prove a Will in court?
At least one attesting witness must testify to execution and soundness, and registration further supports authenticity.
