Supreme Court Holds High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC
The Supreme Court suspicious will judgment reinforces that merely proving the formal execution of a Will is not enough when suspicious circumstances surround it. Allowing Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decree after finding that the propounders failed to remove serious doubts about the Will. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated July 18, 2016, and restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The judgment was delivered on July 6, 2026.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute began with a suit filed by Bhambo Devi, the widow of Chhajju Ram. She sought a declaration that she alone owned and possessed the suit property after her husband’s death.
She challenged a registered Will dated November 6, 1974, under which the defendants claimed ownership and obtained mutation of the property in their favour.
According to her, Chhajju Ram was an illiterate agriculturist who died intestate on February 5, 1992. Since the couple had no children, she claimed to be his sole legal heir.
She further alleged that the defendants relied on a forged Will obtained through fraud and undue influence. Besides seeking a declaration, she also sought a permanent injunction and, alternatively, possession if the Court found that she had been dispossessed.
On the other hand, the defendants argued that Chhajju Ram voluntarily executed the registered Will because of the love, affection, and services they had rendered to him and his wife. They also claimed that the plaintiff knew about the Will and never objected to the mutation proceedings.
Findings of the Courts Below
The Trial Court found several suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
It noted that the testator excluded his wife without giving any convincing reason, despite evidence showing cordial relations between them.
The Trial Court also noticed unexplained alterations on the reverse side of the registered Will. Someone had allegedly replaced another person’s name with that of Chhajju Ram without obtaining the initials of the Sub-Registrar.
Moreover, the defendants neither examined the concerned Sub-Registrar nor explained those alterations.
For these reasons, the Trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove the Will and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
The First Appellate Court agreed with these findings.
It identified additional suspicious circumstances, including the unexplained exclusion of the widow, failure to establish the alleged relationship between the beneficiaries and the testator, execution of the Will nearly eighteen years before the testator’s death without apparent necessity, absence of attesting witnesses from the testator’s village, failure to examine one surviving attesting witness, and unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement.
However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed these concurrent findings in second appeal.
The High Court held that one attesting witness had proved the execution of the registered Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It also concluded that the circumstances identified by the lower courts were insufficient to invalidate the Will.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Radhika Gautam, argued that the burden to prove the Will always remained with its propounders.
She further submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
According to her, the suspicious circumstances remained unexplained throughout the proceedings. She also argued that the plaintiff’s failure to prove fraud or undue influence did not reduce the defendants’ burden to establish the validity of the Will.
Representing the respondents, Shri Rajesh Gupta argued that one attesting witness had duly proved the registered Will. He also submitted that disinheritance of a natural heir alone cannot invalidate a testament and defended the High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Explained the Law on Proof of Wills
The Supreme Court reiterated that proving a Will involves more than satisfying the formal requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
According to the Court, the propounder must also satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the testator voluntarily executed the Will with full knowledge of its contents and legal consequences.
Whenever suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must satisfactorily explain them before the Court can accept the Will as genuine.
The Bench relied on several earlier decisions, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, and Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coelho.
The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the plaintiff had admitted execution of the Will by pleading fraud and undue influence in the alternative.
It clarified that parties may raise alternative pleadings without making an unequivocal admission.
Further, the Bench held that the plaintiff’s decision not to enter the witness box did not weaken her case because the defendants still carried the burden of proving the Will.
Court Found Serious Suspicious Circumstances
After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed with the First Appellate Court.
The Bench found that the unexplained exclusion of the widow, incorrect statements regarding the beneficiaries’ relationship with the testator, lack of proof that the beneficiaries had cared for him, and unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement created serious doubts about the Will.
The Court also clarified that although a Will need not state reasons for its dispositions, any reasons that appear in the document must withstand judicial scrutiny.
Since the evidence did not support those reasons, they strengthened the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court suspicious will judgment held that the defendants had failed to establish the genuineness of the Will.
High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court observed that the existence of suspicious circumstances and the adequacy of their explanation are essentially questions of fact.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had carefully evaluated the evidence and reached the same conclusion.
Therefore, the High Court could not reappreciate the evidence in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
The Bench held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction because the concurrent findings were neither perverse nor legally flawed.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated July 18, 2016.
It restored the Trial Court’s decree, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, declaring the plaintiff entitled to the suit property and confirming the permanent injunction in her favour.
Finally, the Court passed no order as to costs and directed that all pending applications stand disposed of.
