#Testamentary Capacity

The Patna High Court refused probate where a literate testatrix signed an FIR nine days before executing a will with a thumb impression, and the propounders - also attesting witnesses - failed to prove testamentary capacity or dispel the suspicious circumstances. The ruling underscores that propounders bear the burden of affirmatively removing doubts around will execution, particularly when interested witnesses are involved.

Attesting testimony proves will’s execution and outweighs expert opinion, Bombay High Court ruled. It clarified that mere illness like Parkinson’s does not establish unsound mind and that disinheriting a natural heir in favor of offspring is not inherently suspicious.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when a testator certifies corrections to a will and a Sub-Registrar attests to the execution, such formal validation negates suspicion under Section 63, upholding the will’s validity even with handwritten amendments. This clarifies that minor alterations, if properly authenticated, do not invalidate testamentary intent - a critical precedent for probate practitioners handling contested wills with marginal changes.

The Calcutta High Court held that while probate courts must verify a will’s due execution and the testator’s mental capacity under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, they lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the factual accuracy of statements within the will. This clarifies the narrow scope of probate proceedings, shielding executors from having to defend the veracity of personal allegations in a will - a critical boundary for estate litigants.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a registered Will excluding a legal heir is valid unless suspicious circumstances are proven. Ancestral property status requires proof of three-generation inheritance, and familial attestation alone does not invalidate the Will. The Court clarified that exclusion without explanation is not suspicious if justified by prior conduct, setting a precedent for testamentary disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that the mere presence of a beneficiary at the time of a will's execution does not, by itself, create a suspicious circumstance under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Registration of the will and the totality of surrounding evidence remain the decisive factors for proving due execution, offering clarity to executors, beneficiaries, and contesting heirs alike.

Madras HC upholds rejection of a will executed six days after the testator’s hospital discharge for heart disease, ruling that attesting witnesses’ ignorance of the testator’s condition and unnatural dispositions create irrebuttable suspicion under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The judgment reinforces that wills executed under questionable circumstances demand rigorous proof of free consent and sound mind.

Calcutta High Court upheld a Will granting two floors to children from the first marriage and one floor with alienation rights to the second wife, ruling that admitted intimate relationships and equitable distribution rebut presumptions of undue influence or suspicious circumstances under succession law.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Lok Adalat awards obtained through fraud or lack of jurisdiction are invalid, reinforcing judicial oversight over settlements. It also upheld the validity of wills executed abroad if they comply with Indian formalities, while affirming that public charitable trusts exist without mandatory registration. The judgment underscores writ petitions as a remedy against tainted settlements, impacting succession disputes and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Madras High Court rules that mere hospitalization, evening registration, or unequal bequests do not invalidate a Will unless supported by concrete evidence of fraud, undue influence, or testamentary incapacity. The judgment reinforces testamentary autonomy where the Will is duly executed and registered, shifting the burden of proof to challengers to establish material irregularities.