#Testamentary Disposition

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that authorities under the U.P. Ceiling Act must examine third-party claims arising from registered Wills on their substantive merits, not dismiss them for procedural irregularities like mutation delays. This reinforces natural justice in land ceiling proceedings and protects inheritors from arbitrary deprivation of property rights based on technicalities.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that when a defendant raises an affirmative defense (e.g., a will) that, if proven, would entirely defeat the plaintiff’s claim, the court may direct the defendant to lead evidence first. This prioritizes judicial efficiency by ensuring the party with the burden of proving a dispositive fact presents evidence upfront, rather than adhering rigidly to the plaintiff’s default right to begin.

The Bombay High Court held that procedural irregularities in a will’s execution - such as inconsistent dates or locations - do not invalidate probate if attesting witnesses unchallenged by the opponent affirm its authenticity. This clarifies that technical flaws by non-lawyers are not fatal under Section 68, empowering executors and beneficiaries facing familial challenges to probate without requiring perfect documentation.

Madras High Court rules that daughters are entitled to equal coparcenary shares in ancestral property under the 2005 Amendment, even in partition suits pending before the amendment. However, testamentary dispositions made before 20.12.2004 remain valid, overriding statutory changes. The final decree must reflect these legal nuances.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that under Muslim law, a testator cannot bequeath more than one-third of their estate without the consent of legal heirs. The ruling invalidates a disputed will, reinforcing that a son's inheritance right to a half-share prevails over unconsented testamentary claims, impacting property disputes among Muslim families.