Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree
The Supreme Court restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. The Bench held that the defendants failed to remove the doubts surrounding a registered Will allegedly executed by late Chhajju Ram. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016, by judgment dated July 6, 2026. It also set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated July 18, 2016, in Regular Second Appeal No. 475 of 2003. The ruling highlights the importance of Supreme Court suspicious circumstances Will principles while evaluating disputed testamentary documents.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute began when Bhambo Devi, the widow of late Chhajju Ram, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner and person in possession of her husband’s property after his intestate death.
She challenged a registered Will dated November 6, 1974. According to her, Chhajju Ram never executed the Will. She also alleged that the defendants obtained it through fraud and undue influence. Meanwhile, the defendants relied on the Will to claim ownership and secure mutation of the property in their favour.
After Bhambo Devi passed away, Sardari Lal continued the proceedings as her legal representative.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the appellant, Ms. Radhika Gautam argued that the defendants had admitted Bhambo Devi’s status as the widow and sole Class I heir of Chhajju Ram. Therefore, the burden of proving the Will rested entirely on the defendants.
She further argued that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had correctly identified several suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. According to the appellant, the High Court exceeded its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Gupta, appearing for the respondents, argued that the defendants had duly proved the registered Will through an attesting witness as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. He also submitted that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence supporting the allegations of fraud or undue influence.
Supreme Court on Proof of Wills
The Supreme Court examined several earlier decisions, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti, and Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coalho.
The Court reiterated that proving a Will requires more than establishing its execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whenever suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must remove those doubts and satisfy the Court that the testator executed the Will voluntarily and with full knowledge of its contents.
Further, the Bench clarified that the plaintiff’s plea of fraud or undue influence did not amount to an admission that Chhajju Ram had executed the Will.
Additionally, the Court relied on Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the defendants admitted that Bhambo Devi was the widow and sole Class I heir, she did not need to prove those facts again. Therefore, the burden of proving the Will remained on the defendants.
Suspicious Circumstances Remained Unexplained
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that several suspicious circumstances surrounded the Will.
For instance, the Will completely excluded the testator’s wife despite evidence that she had cared for him throughout his life. Moreover, the beneficiaries were neither close relatives nor did they establish that they had rendered the services mentioned in the Will.
The Court also noted incorrect statements regarding the beneficiaries’ relationship with the testator. In addition, the Will had been executed several years before the testator’s death without any convincing explanation. The Bench further noticed unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement, where the name “Laxmi Kant” had been replaced with “Chhajju Ram” without the Sub-Registrar’s initials.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the defendants failed to remove these serious doubts. It emphasized that when a Will excludes a spouse in favour of strangers or non-natural heirs, the propounder must provide convincing reasons. This approach reflects the settled law governing Supreme Court suspicious circumstances Will cases.
High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court held that the existence of suspicious circumstances and their explanation are essentially questions of fact.
Since both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had carefully examined the evidence and reached the same conclusion, the High Court could not reassess those findings merely because another interpretation was possible.
Furthermore, the Bench observed that Section 100 CPC permits interference only when a substantial question of law arises or when findings suffer from legal errors. In this case, no such error existed. Therefore, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the concurrent factual findings.
Final Directions
Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated July 18, 2016.
The Court restored the Trial Court’s decree, which the First Appellate Court had earlier affirmed. As a result, Bhambo Devi’s legal representative retained ownership and possession of the suit property. The Court also upheld the permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Finally, the Bench disposed of all pending applications and made no order as to costs.
