1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge decision that (i) dismissed a probate petition concerning an unregistered Will and (ii) simultaneously decreed a partition suit on the premise that the mother had died intestate. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the Will dated 10.05.1989 was validly executed, duly proved by two attesting witnesses and the scribe, and contained no genuine suspicious circumstances.
The Court ruled that the single judge erred by relying on assumptions never put to the attesting witnesses and by treating minor preservation issues or family dynamics as grounds to reject a Will. It restored the probate by issuing Letters of Administration in favour of the beneficiary and dismissed the partition suit.
2. Facts
Two connected matters were consolidated:
- A probate petition seeking Letters of Administration for an unregistered Will said to have been executed by the mother on 10.05.1989, bequeathing her Model Town property to one son;
- A partition suit filed by her other children claiming intestate succession.
The Testatrix left behind multiple children. The Will was allegedly scribed by her daughter-in-law and witnessed by two attesting witnesses. Another earlier Will dated 06.02.1989 had been the subject of a probate petition by the husband, but he withdrew his petition and expressly stated that he had no objection to the 10.05.1989 Will being treated as the last Will.
The single judge rejected the Will based on various perceived suspicious circumstances, leading to dismissal of the probate and decree of partition. The propounder appealed.
3. Issues
The appellate court examined:
- Whether the Will dated 10.05.1989 was validly proved under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the single judge was justified in identifying “suspicious circumstances” without corresponding pleadings, suggestions, or cross-examination.
- Whether folding of the Will, absence of photographs, or location of execution could render the Will invalid.
- Whether exclusion of daughters and other sons constituted suspicious conduct.
- Whether signatures could be doubted by comparison with an unproved earlier Will.
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant argued that the Will was proved through both attesting witnesses and the scribe, each of whom consistently testified that the Testatrix dictated and executed the document in their presence. No questions suggesting fabrication, use of blank signed paper, or coercion were put to these witnesses.
The appellant submitted that the single judge had sua sponte raised suspicions never pleaded by the objectors. The folding of the Will, absence of photos of a birthday celebration, or the place of execution were matters irrelevant to legal proof. The daughters were married and financially secure, making their exclusion unsurprising. The appellant stressed that the husband himself withdrew his own probate petition and acknowledged the later Will as the last Will.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The respondents argued that the Will was forged on a blank paper already bearing the Testatrix’s signature. They claimed that her two signatures were inconsistent, that the Will was folded in an unusual manner, that there was no proof of the birthday event at which the Will was allegedly scribed, and that a woman educated only until Class II could not have dictated such a document. They further argued that the Will unfairly disinherited daughters and did not involve the Testatrix’s husband, making it inherently doubtful.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court extensively examined the foundational principles governing probate:
A. Will must be proved by attesting witnesses
Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires at least one attesting witness to prove execution; here, two were examined, both supporting due execution. Their cross-examination contained no suggestion of fabrication.
B. Suspicious circumstances must be pleaded and put in cross-examination
A court cannot invent suspicions at the final stage without giving the propounder or witnesses an opportunity to explain. The Division Bench held that the burden lies on the objector to specifically confront the witnesses.
C. Folding, preservation, or absence of photographs are irrelevant
The Court held that preservation methods vary by household and era. In 1989, cameras were rare and mobile phones non-existent.
D. Testatrix’s education level is not a ground
A person need not be highly educated to dictate her last wishes—especially when the Will is in simple Hindi and scribed by a daughter-in-law who studied up to Class VIII.
E. Exclusion of children does not constitute suspicion
A parent may bequeath property to any child for any reason. Here, reasons were recorded: two sons were well-established; the beneficiary was financially weaker. The daughters were married and well-settled.
F. Signature comparison with an unproved earlier Will is impermissible
The 06.02.1989 Will was withdrawn and never proved. Therefore, its signatures cannot be used to undermine the later Will.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment does not cite external cases, its reasoning aligns with established principles:
• Courts must not reject a Will based on conjecture; suspicions must be real, cogent, and supported by evidence.
• Attesting witnesses’ credibility is paramount unless impeached. Here, lengthy cross-examination did not shake their testimony.
• Preservation issues or family politics cannot override legal proof of execution.
• Earlier unproved documents cannot be benchmarks for signature comparison.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found:
- All statutory requirements were fulfilled — attesting witnesses and the scribe proved execution.
- Signatures at two places were not suspicious — objectors never questioned witnesses about them; burden lay on objectors, not the propounder.
- Folding of the Will was irrelevant — the document was kept by a daughter-in-law educated until Class VIII; nothing suggested manipulation.
- Absence of photographs of a birthday event was meaningless — technology of 1989 must be contextualised.
- Place of execution was not suspicious — the Testatrix executed the Will at the house of the beneficiary where she frequently stayed.
- Disinheritance claims were unfounded — no evidence of strained relations; Testatrix clearly stated reasons for leaving the property to one son.
- The husband had acknowledged the Will — he withdrew his earlier petition and accepted the 10.05.1989 Will as genuine.
The single judge, the Division Bench held, relied on inferences never put to witnesses and therefore contrary to established probate jurisprudence.
9. Conclusion
The High Court held that the Will of 10.05.1989 was validly proved and that the alleged suspicious circumstances had no evidentiary foundation. Accordingly:
• The probate petition was allowed;
• Letters of Administration were issued to the beneficiary;
• The partition suit was dismissed;
• The single judge’s judgment dated 25.04.2018 was set aside.
10. Implications
This ruling clarifies key principles in probate law:
• Suspicious circumstances cannot be conjured without confronting witnesses.
• Preservation or folding of a Will cannot destroy its validity.
• A Will need not favour all legal heirs.
• Courts must respect testamentary autonomy unless coercion or forgery is proved.
• Elderly, semi-literate testators can still execute valid Wills in their own language.
The decision strengthens the protection of genuine Wills against speculative challenges and reinforces the sanctity of testamentary intention.
CASE-LAW REFERENCE SECTION
(As applied by the Court — the judgment itself does not cite external authorities.)
Principle of proof under Section 68 Evidence Act — Attesting witnesses are the best evidence; once credible, the Will stands proved.
Suspicious circumstances doctrine — Burden lies on objectors to put specific doubts to the witnesses; courts cannot raise them at final stage.
Freedom of testamentary disposition — Testators may distribute property unequally; exclusion of heirs is not inherently suspicious.
Unproved documents cannot impeach proved documents — Signatures on an unproved Will cannot be used for comparison.
FAQs
1. Can a Will be rejected because it is old, folded, or poorly preserved?
No. The Court held that preservation practices differ across families and decades. Folding or age cannot invalidate a validly executed Will.
2. Is exclusion of daughters from a Will automatically suspicious?
No. A testator may choose any beneficiary. The Court said exclusion of married and well-settled daughters is not suspicious in itself.
3. Must suspicious circumstances be put to attesting witnesses?
Yes. If not raised in pleadings or cross-examination, the court cannot later invent such suspicions.
