The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the proof of a Will is not a mere formal exercise, but a substantive inquiry into the testator’s free will and the integrity of the execution process. A registered Will, even if formally compliant, cannot be sustained if suspicious circumstances surround its creation and the propounder fails to dispel them with credible, consistent evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Smt. Laxmi Yadav, claimed ownership of agricultural land in village Torwa, Bilaspur, through a registered Will dated 28.05.2001 executed by her uncle, Dhaniram Yadav. She sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against respondents, who contested her claim on grounds that Dhaniram had no valid title to the property and that the Will was forged.
Procedural History
- 2010: Civil Suit No. 65-A/2010 filed by appellant before 8th Civil Judge, Bilaspur.
- 2011: Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale deeds and Will were unproven and invalid.
- 2012: First Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s findings.
- 2013: Second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 2025: Additional substantial question of law formulated under Section 105 CPC regarding validity of Will execution.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought a declaration that she was the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will and an injunction restraining respondents from interfering with her possession.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the propounder of a registered Will has discharged the burden under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove its due execution, particularly when suspicious circumstances are present and the attesting witness’s testimony is contradictory and unreliable.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Will was duly registered and attested by PW-3, Dileep Kumar, who confirmed the testator’s signature. Reliance was placed on Dayashankar v. Jaishankar and Rajni v. Basudev Narayan Singh to contend that the courts below erred in disbelieving the attesting witness. It was submitted that registration under the Registration Act should be treated as conclusive proof of execution.
For the Respondents
The respondents contended that the Will was shrouded in suspicious circumstances: the testator was elderly and mentally frail; the Will was prepared by the appellant’s husband prior to attestation; the attesting witness could not identify the properties bequeathed; and the Will excluded other beneficiaries without explanation. They further argued that Dhaniram had no title to the property, as the underlying sale deeds were unregistered or executed by a person without authority, rendering the Will void ab initio.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that registration alone does not dispense with the need to prove execution. The Court noted that the attesting witness, PW-3, gave contradictory statements regarding where the Will was typed - first claiming the Registrar’s office, then the District Court, and finally admitting it was typed before the date of execution. He also admitted he had not read the Will and was unaware of the property distribution.
"The propounder of a Will must remove all suspicious circumstances, and the court’s conscience must be satisfied that the Will was the free act of the testator."
The Court relied on Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh, and B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh to hold that suspicious circumstances - including the testator’s age, the beneficiary’s active role in preparation, the omission of other beneficiaries from the suit, and the witness’s inability to recall key details - must be convincingly explained. The Court found no such explanation.
Further, the Court examined the validity of the underlying title. The unregistered sale deed (Ext. P-2) dated 02.07.1961 for Khasra No. 840 was held void under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, as it purported to transfer immovable property without registration. The registered sale deed (Ext. P-1) from Sukhmat Bai to Dhaniram was also invalidated, as the plaintiff failed to prove partition of ancestral property, leaving Sukhmat Bai without exclusive title to transfer. The Court cited Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi to hold that a sale without consideration is void and a sham.
The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts, which disbelieved the attesting witness and found the Will unproved, were not perverse and could not be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the due execution of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and that the underlying title of the testator was invalid. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld as legally sound.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored
- Practitioners must proactively identify and address suspicious circumstances in Will cases: beneficiary involvement, witness inconsistencies, omission of other heirs, and testator’s mental state.
- Registration of a Will does not substitute for proof of execution; courts will probe deeper if doubts exist.
- Failure to explain suspicious circumstances renders even a registered Will inadmissible.
Title Must Precede Testamentary Disposition
- A testator cannot bequeath property they do not legally own.
- Unregistered sale deeds cannot confer title under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
- In ancestral property disputes, the burden lies on the propounder to prove partition before asserting individual ownership.
- A registered sale deed between family members without proof of consideration may be treated as a sham transaction under Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi.
Appellate Courts Cannot Reappreciate Facts in Second Appeals
- Second appeals under Section 100 CPC are limited to substantial questions of law.
- Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding unless perverse.
- Courts must not re-evaluate witness credibility or evidence appreciation in second appeals unless a legal error is demonstrable.
