Holding

A will tainted by unresolved suspicious circumstances cannot be deemed validly executed; the appellant failed to dispel the doubts, so the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The case concerned a registered will allegedly executed by Hamam Singh in favour of the appellants, Gurial Kaur and others. Although the will bore the Sub‑Registrar’s endorsement and the executant was said to have been identified by a village Lambardar, the trial court set aside the will on grounds of suspicion, which the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court examined whether the suspicious circumstances—such as the disinheritance of natural heirs, the lack of prior mention of the will, uncertainty about the Lambardar’s identity, and the scribe’s ignorance of the executant—could be dispelled by the propounder. Relying on precedents, the Court held that registration alone does not remove suspicion and the burden lies on the party asserting the will’s validity to prove proper execution and free volition. Since the appellant failed to dispel the doubts, the will was not deemed validly executed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the will executed by Hamam Singh satisfies the requirements of valid execution and attestation under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in view of the alleged suspicious circumstances.
Whether the burden of dispelling suspicion rests on the propounder of the will and if that burden was met.

Legislation cited

Indian Succession Act, 1925

Subjects

WillExecutionAttestationIndian Succession ActSuspicious circumstancesBurden of proofRegistration of willInheritanceDisinheritance

Judgment

A GURDIAL KAUR AND ORS.
v.
KARTAR KAUR AND ORS. ~ .-
MARCH 21i, 1998

B [G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 : 'r -

Will-Valid execution and attestation of-Suspicious circumstances
c about execution of will-Onus is on the propounder ofwill to dispel suspicious
circumstances-Conscience· of the Court must be sqtisfied that the Will in
question was executed and attested in the manner required-It should also
be found that the Will was the product of the free volition of the executant-
Will in favour of the appellants-Appellate Court did not accept valid
execution of the Will indicating reasons-Specific finding that suspicion had
D not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court-Finding upheld by the
High Court-Held there was no reason to interfere with such decision.
\.-
Rani Purnima Debi and anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and
another, AIR (1962) SC 567, referred to.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:. Civil Appeal No. 2944 of
1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.84 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in R.S. A .No. 2995 of 1984.
F Kamal Kumar Bhatia and Naveen Saxena for the Appellants.
+ "'
R.C. Gubrele, (N.P.) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G This appeal is directed against the judgement dated November 26, 1984
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Appeal No. 2995of1984.
By the impugned judgement, the High Court dismissed the said appeal by >....
which the Will stated to have been executed by one Hamam Singh in favour
of the appellants was not accepted to be a valid one by the learned District
H Judge in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. There is no dispute
486
G. KAUR v. K. KAUR 487

in this case that the Will in question was a registered Will and there is an A
endorsement by the Sub-Registrar that the executant of the Will was introduced
to him by one Puran Singh, the Lambardar of a village and the executant had
admitted the execution of the Will in his presence and also signed in his
presence.

The Court of Appeal below has indicated several factors which according B
to the learned Judge, had raised reasonable suspicion about the genuineness
and valid execution of the said Will. It has been indicated that some of the
natural heirs had been disinherited in the said Will without any reason for
such action. It has also been indicated that there was not even a whisper in
the original written statement filed by the legatees to the Will about the C
existence of such Will in the Declaratory Suit filed against them. Only when
one heir was left out and added as a party defendant, for the first time, in the
additional written statement the execution of Will was mentioned. The learned
District Judge has also indicated the reason for which he had doubted that
the executant of the Will had been identified by the Lambardar because the
Sub-Registrar could not say whether the Lambardar identifying the executant D
was a Harijan Lambardar or someone else. It may also be indicated here that
the scribe of the Will, in his deposition, stated that he did not know the
executant of the Will.

The law is well-settled that if there is suspicious circumstance about the
execution of the Will, it is the duty of the person seeking declaration about E
the validity of the Will to dispel such suspicious circumstances. In this
connection, reference may be mad€ to the decision of this court in Rani
Purnima Debi and another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another,
AIR (1962) SC 567. It has been held in the said decision that if a Will being
registered and having regard to the other circumstances, is accepted to be a F
genuine, the mere fact that the Will is a registered Will it will not by itself be
sufficient to dispel all suspicions regarding the validity of the Will where
suspicions exist. it has been held that the broad statement by witness that
he had witnessed the testator admitting execution of the Will was not sufficient
to dispel suspicions regarding due execution and attestation of the Will. It has
been specifically held that registration of the Will by itself was not sufficient G
to remove the suspicion, Relying on an earlier decision of this Court reported
in AIR (1959) SC 443, it has been held in the said decision that where the
propounder was unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which
surrounded the question of valid execution and attestation of the Will, no
letters of administration in favour of the propounder could be .granted. H
t
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A The law is well settled that the conscience of the Court must be satisfied
that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner <- "
required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found
that the said Will was the product of t~e free volition of the executant who
had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the
B contents of the Will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance,
the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicous
circumstance. As in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court of I'- -
Appeal below did not accept the valid execution of the Will by indicating
reasons and coming to a specific finding that suspicion had not been dispelled
to the satisfaction of the Court and such finding of the Court of Appeal below
C has also has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgement, we
do not find any reason to interfere with such decision. This appeal, therefore,
fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

t ..