The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has clarified that minor corrections in a registered will, if certified by the testator and endorsed by the Sub-Registrar, do not invalidate the document. This judgment reinforces the principle that technical irregularities must be assessed in context, particularly when the testator’s intent is clear and the will is otherwise properly attested.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the ownership of a residential and commercial property located in Ward No. 5, Gulabganj Mandi, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The property consists of a house and a shop with an open space measuring 90x87 sq.ft. The plaintiff, Smt. Leela Pansari, claims ownership through a registered will dated 13.12.1991 executed by her maternal uncle, Nathuram Khera, who died on 01.01.2006. Nathuram’s wife, Smt. Shanti Bai, died on 11.06.2007, both being issueless. The defendant No.1, Smt. Maya Khera, acquired the shop portion through a registered sale deed dated 12.09.2006 executed by Smt. Shanti Bai. Defendant No.3, Omkar Prasad Khera, claims the entire property was purchased by his father, Shri Ramcharan Lal, from Ehsaan Hussain on 15.12.1943.
Key Facts
- Nathuram Khera executed a registered will (Ex. P/3) on 13.12.1991 bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiff.
- The will contained several handwritten corrections, including a modification to the succession clause concerning Smt. Shanti Bai.
- The corrections were signed by Nathuram Khera and certified by the Sub-Registrar on the overleaf of the first page.
- Naval Kishore (PW-2), an attesting witness and the plaintiff’s uncle-in-law, testified to the execution of the will.
- Chain Singh, the other attesting witness, was not examined.
- Smt. Shanti Bai executed a registered sale deed (Ex. P/11) in favor of defendant No.1 on 12.09.2006 for the shop portion.
- Defendant No.3 produced revenue records (Ex. D/1 to D/4) and sale deeds (Ex. D/9) to assert ownership by his father, Ramcharan Lal.
- The boundaries of the property claimed by defendant No.3 (165x40 sq.ft.) differ from those described in the plaintiff’s plaint and the compromise order (Ex. P/7).
- The plaintiff lived with Nathuram and Shanti Bai since childhood and was treated as their daughter; her marriage was performed by them.
- Defendant No.3 admitted in cross-examination that the plaintiff resided with Nathuram and Shanti Bai from childhood.
Procedural History
- 13.12.1991: Nathuram Khera executed the will (Ex. P/3) in favor of the plaintiff.
- 15.12.1943: Shri Ramcharan Lal purchased land from Ehsaan Hussain (Ex. D/9).
- 16.11.2005: Nathuram Khera executed an agreement to sell the shop to defendant No.1.
- 01.01.2006: Death of Nathuram Khera.
- 11.06.2007: Death of Smt. Shanti Bai.
- 12.09.2006: Smt. Shanti Bai executed sale deed (Ex. P/11) in favor of defendant No.1.
- 20.10.2010: Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding the will unproved due to corrections.
- 27.02.2011: First Appeal filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior.
- 07.05.2026: Appeal reserved for judgment.
- 12.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Ashish Shroti.
The Parties' Positions
- Plaintiff (Appellant): Claims ownership through the will; argues corrections were certified and do not affect validity; accepts defendant No.1’s title to the shop.
- Defendant No.1: Accepts validity of sale deed; contends the will gave only life interest to Shanti Bai, who then validly sold the shop.
- Defendant No.3: Claims entire property belonged to his father; alleges the will is fabricated and Nathuram had no title.
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought: (1) declaration of her title to the suit property (excluding the shop), (2) declaration that the sale deed by Shanti Bai was valid for the shop, (3) declaration that mutation in favor of defendants No.1 and No.3 is illegal, and (4) permanent injunction against interference.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a registered will with corrections signed by the testator and certified by the Sub-Registrar can be invalidated solely on the ground of those corrections, and whether non-examination of one attesting witness renders the will unproved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant relied on Navneet Lal v. Gokul and Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kantham to argue that: (1) corrections in the will were endorsed by Nathuram’s signature and the Sub-Registrar’s certification, negating any suspicion; (2) the correction in the succession clause actually disadvantaged the plaintiff by converting her interest from absolute to contingent upon Shanti Bai’s death; (3) only one attesting witness (PW-2) was required to be examined under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and his testimony was credible and unimpeached; (4) the plaintiff’s long-standing relationship with the testators and the absence of natural heirs support the testator’s intent.
For the Respondent
Defendant No.1 supported the trial court’s finding, arguing the will was ambiguous and the corrections created uncertainty. Defendant No.3 contended the will was void ab initio because Nathuram had no title to the property, citing revenue records and sale deeds (Ex. D/9) to establish his father’s ownership. He further argued that the trial court correctly rejected the will due to unexplained alterations and non-examination of both attesting witnesses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the legal framework under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which require strict proof of a will but do not mandate examination of both attesting witnesses. Citing Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande (2003) 8 SCC 537, the Court held that examination of one attesting witness is sufficient if their testimony is credible and unchallenged.
The Court noted that PW-2, Naval Kishore, was the plaintiff’s uncle-in-law and had no motive to fabricate. His testimony was consistent, detailed, and corroborated by the plaintiff’s own account of her upbringing by the testators. Crucially, no adverse inference was drawn from the non-examination of Chain Singh, as the law does not require it.
"The mere non-examination of the advocate who was present at the time of preparation or registration of the Will cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the same."
The Court then turned to the corrections in the will. The trial court had invalidated the will on the basis of alterations, particularly the change in the succession clause from granting life interest to Shanti Bai to making her the successor. However, the Court observed that this modification actually diminished the plaintiff’s interest, making it implausible that she had fabricated it. The corrections were signed by Nathuram Khera and explicitly certified by the Sub-Registrar on the overleaf of the will - a fact the trial court overlooked.
The Court emphasized that registration of a will carries a statutory presumption of validity under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, which can only be rebutted by clear evidence of fraud or forgery. No such evidence was adduced. The defendant No.3’s claim of title was further undermined by conflicting boundary descriptions: the property he claimed (165x40 sq.ft.) did not match the suit property (90x87 sq.ft.), and his panchanama documents (Ex. D/7 & D/8) failed to describe boundaries with precision.
The Court also noted that defendant No.3’s own contention - that Shanti Bai sold only a portion of the property - implicitly acknowledged Nathuram’s ownership, as only the owner could bequeath the property.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court set aside the trial court’s order dated 20.10.2010 and held: (1) the will dated 13.12.1991 (Ex. P/3) is valid and duly executed; (2) the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property excluding the shop; (3) the sale deed dated 12.09.2006 in favor of defendant No.1 is valid and conveys title to the shop; (4) the cross-objection of defendant No.3 is dismissed. The Court directed the registration of the plaintiff’s title in the revenue records within 8 weeks and awarded costs of Rs. 15,000 to the appellant.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Corrections Do Not Invalidate a Will if Certified
- Practitioners must argue that any alteration in a will, if signed by the testator and endorsed by the registering officer, cannot be grounds for rejection.
- Courts must examine whether the correction benefits the propounder - if not, suspicion is negated.
One Attesting Witness Is Sufficient
- The burden shifts to the opponent to prove fraud or lack of testamentary capacity; mere non-examination of the second witness is not fatal.
- The testimony of one credible attesting witness, supported by registration, satisfies statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
Registration Creates Presumption of Validity
-
Registered wills enjoy a statutory presumption under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
-
Opponents must lead affirmative evidence of forgery or coercion - mere technical objections are insufficient.
-
Revenue records alone cannot override a registered will unless they conclusively prove lack of title.
-
Always verify whether corrections in a will were signed by the testator and certified by the Sub-Registrar.
-
In will disputes, focus on the testator’s intent, relationship with beneficiaries, and absence of natural heirs as contextual evidence.
-
Do not rely solely on revenue records to challenge a will; boundaries and descriptions must be precisely matched.
