Section 63 Succession Act | Propounder Must Remove Suspicious Circumstances to Prove Valid Will Execution : SC

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the propounder of a will must not only prove its execution in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but also explain any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution to satisfy the court’s judicial conscience. The judgment underscores that where a will disinherits a natural heir in favour of non-relatives, contains incorrect recitals, or bears registration irregularities, the propounder must dispel doubts about its validity.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Sardari Lal, is the legal representative of Bhambo Devi, the widow of Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist who died intestate on 05.02.1992. Bhambo Devi filed Civil Suit No. 51/1993 seeking:

• A declaration that she is the sole owner and possessor of the suit property left by her husband;
• Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession; and
• Alternatively, possession if found dispossessed.

The defendants, Bishan Dass and others, claimed ownership based on a registered will dated 06.11.1974, allegedly executed by Chhajju Ram in their favour. They contended that the will was executed out of love and affection, as a reward for services rendered to the testator and his wife.

Key Facts

• Chhajju Ram was the sole owner of the suit property.
• He died issueless, leaving Bhambo Devi as his sole Class I heir.
• The defendants obtained mutation no. 66 dated 14.08.1992 in their favour based on the alleged will.
• The will disinherited Bhambo Devi, stating she had sufficient jewellery and cash.
• The will was registered, but the back page bore uninitialled cuttings, changing the name of the executant from Laxmi Kant Bassi to Chhajju Ram.

Procedural History

• 12.06.1993: Suit filed before the Trial Court.
• 15.11.1996: Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the will shrouded in suspicious circumstances and invalid.
• 03.03.1997: Defendants filed First Appeal No. 144/1996.
• 14.08.2003: First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decree, discarding the will.
• 18.07.2016: High Court allowed the Second Appeal (RSA No. 475/2003), setting aside the decrees of the lower courts and dismissing the suit.
• 28.03.2023: Present appeal filed before the Supreme Court.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

• Setting aside of the High Court’s judgment;
• Restoration of the Trial Court’s decree declaring Bhambo Devi as the owner in possession of the suit property; and
• Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the registered will dated 06.11.1974 was validly executed by Chhajju Ram, or whether it was shrouded in suspicious circumstances that the propounder failed to explain to the satisfaction of the court’s judicial conscience.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

1. Burden on Propounder: The burden to prove the will’s execution and validity lay on the defendants as its propounders.
2. Suspicious Circumstances: The will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including:
   • Unnatural Disposition: Disinheritance of the testator’s wife in favour of non-relatives without cogent reasons.
   • Incorrect Recitals: The will falsely stated that the defendants were the testator’s nephews and had provided him food and lodging.
   • Timing of Execution: No reason for executing the will in 1974 when the testator lived till 1992.
   • Choice of Witnesses: Attesting witnesses were not from the testator’s village, raising doubts about their credibility.
   • Registration Irregularities: Uninitialled cuttings on the back of the will suggested tampering or misrepresentation.
3. Judicial Precedents: Relied on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, and Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, which held that suspicious circumstances must be explained by the propounder.

For the Respondent

1. Execution Proved: The will’s execution was proved by the attesting witness (DW-2 Hariram), satisfying Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
2. No Suspicious Circumstances: Mere disinheritance of a wife or timing of execution does not invalidate a will. The testator was free to choose his beneficiaries.
3. Registration Irrelevant: Registration of the will was optional, and cuttings on the back page did not affect the front page, which bore the testator’s thumb impression and witnesses’ signatures.
4. Burden on Caveator: The burden to prove fraud or undue influence lay on the plaintiff, who failed to lead evidence.
5. Judicial Precedents: Relied on Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage and Sridevi v. Jayaraj Shetty, which held that once execution is proved, the will should be upheld unless the caveator proves vitiating factors.

The Court's Analysis

Legal Principles on Proof of Wills

The Court reiterated the settled law:

1. Burden on Propounder: The propounder must prove the will’s execution and, if shrouded in suspicious circumstances, explain them to satisfy the court’s judicial conscience (H. Venkatachala Iyengar).
2. Suspicious Circumstances: These may include:
   • Unnatural disposition of property;
   • Incorrect or improbable recitals in the will;
   • Active role of the beneficiary in its execution;
   • Registration irregularities; or
   • Any circumstance raising doubt about the testator’s free will.
3. Judicial Conscience: The court must be satisfied that the testator executed the will with full understanding of its contents and effect.

Application to the Present Case

1. Disinheritance of Wife:

   • The will disinherited Bhambo Devi, the sole Class I heir, in favour of non-relatives.
   • The explanation in the will - that she had sufficient jewellery and cash - was found flimsy and unsubstantiated.
   • Evidence showed she had cared for the testator till his death, and the defendants were not in a position to serve him in 1974 (one was a student, the other in service).
   • This raised a suspicious circumstance requiring explanation.

2. Incorrect Recitals in the Will:

   • The will falsely stated that the defendants were the testator’s nephews and had provided him food and lodging.
   • DW-2 admitted the testator had a separate house, and the site plan showed separate residences.
   • This raised doubts about whether the testator fully understood the will’s contents or was misled.

3. Registration Irregularities:

   • The back page of the will bore uninitialled cuttings, changing the name of the executant from Laxmi Kant Bassi to Chhajju Ram.
   • Under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer must verify the identity of the executant and ensure proper endorsement.
   • The irregularities deprived the propounder of the presumption of valid registration, raising doubts about whether Chhajju Ram presented the will for registration.

4. Timing of Execution:

   • While the timing of execution (1974) was not suspicious per se, it became relevant when considered with other circumstances, such as the testator’s long survival (till 1992) and the lack of any arrangement for his wife’s maintenance.

5. Choice of Witnesses:

   • The Court held that the choice of witnesses from another village was not material, as the testator could choose anyone he trusted.
   • However, the non-examination of the second attesting witness (Jagdish Ram) raised suspicion.

Evaluation of Evidence

• The defendants examined three witnesses:
  1. DW-1 Ram Singh (defendant): Claimed the defendants served the testator, but admitted they were not close relatives.
  2. DW-2 Hariram (attesting witness): Proved the will’s execution but admitted the testator was illiterate and the defendants were not in a position to serve him in 1974.
  3. DW-3 Shanti Lal: Proved the signature of the scribe (Som Nath), who was deceased.
• The plaintiff examined one witness (PW-1), who proved the site plan showing separate residences.

Distinction from Precedents

The Court distinguished the case from Madhukar D. Shende and Sridevi:

• In Madhukar D. Shende, the legatee was the testator’s sister’s daughter, and no heir challenged the will.
• In Sridevi, the testator had made provisions for all heirs, unlike here, where the sole heir was completely disinherited.
• Here, the unnatural disposition, incorrect recitals, and registration irregularities raised serious doubts about the will’s validity.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The Court held:

1. The will was invalid as it was shrouded in suspicious circumstances that the propounder failed to explain.
2. Bhambo Devi was the sole owner in possession of the suit property by intestate succession.
3. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with her possession.
4. No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Explained

• Where a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must explain them satisfactorily to the court’s judicial conscience.
• Suspicious circumstances may include:
  • Unnatural disposition (e.g., disinheriting a dependent in favour of non-relatives);
  • Incorrect or improbable recitals in the will;
  • Active role of the beneficiary in its execution; or
  • Registration irregularities (e.g., uninitialled cuttings, tampering).

Illiterate Testators Require Greater Scrutiny

• If the testator is illiterate, the court must closely scrutinize whether he executed the will with full understanding of its contents.
• Incorrect recitals in the will may indicate that the testator was misled or did not comprehend the dispositions.

Registration Does Not Cure Defects

• Registration of a will is optional and does not cure defects in its execution.
• If the registration process is irregular (e.g., uninitialled cuttings, misidentification of the executant), the propounder cannot rely on the presumption of valid registration.

Second Appeal Limited to Questions of Law

• Under Section 100 of the CPC, a second appeal lies only on substantial questions of law.
• If the lower courts’ findings on suspicious circumstances are based on evidence and proper reasoning, the High Court cannot interfere merely because it disagrees with the conclusion.