Registered Will Not Immune to Scrutiny: Supreme Court Affirms Propounder Must Dispel Suspicious Circumstances to Satisfy Judicial Conscience
Case: Sardari Lal Vs Bishan Dass & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Overview of the Dispute
The Supreme Court, in this landmark pronouncement, restored the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, firmly rejecting the view taken by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The central legal proposition affirmed was that mere registration of a Will, combined with proof of attestation, does not by itself establish the document's authenticity or validity. Where a Will is enveloped in suspicious circumstances, the obligation rests squarely on its propounder to go beyond formal proof and affirmatively satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court.
Background and Facts of the Case
The predecessor of the appellant, one Bhambo Devi, wife of the late Chhajju Ram, instituted Civil Suit No. 51/1993 against Bishan Dass (Respondent No. 1) and Ram Singh (represented by his legal representatives, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5). The suit sought a declaration that she was the sole owner and occupant of the suit schedule property left behind by her deceased husband, Chhajju Ram. Ancillary reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction and, alternatively, recovery of possession were also claimed.
The undisputed facts between the parties included:
- Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist, was the original and sole owner of the suit schedule property.
- He died without any surviving children, which meant that in the absence of a testamentary disposition, his widow — the plaintiff — would be the sole Class I heir entitled to succeed to his estate.
The plaintiff's case, as stated in the plaint, was that Chhajju Ram died intestate on 05.02.1992, and she, as his lawfully wedded wife, was the only surviving legal heir. The defendants, she alleged, had procured mutation of revenue records in their favour on 14.08.1992 on the basis of a purported registered Will dated 06.11.1974 — a document she described as bogus, forged, and tainted by fraud and undue influence.
The defendants, in contrast, claimed that Chhajju Ram had voluntarily executed a registered Will in their favour out of affection and in recognition of the services they had rendered to him and the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had been aware of this Will throughout.
Evidence Led Before the Trial Court
To establish execution of the Will, the defendants examined three witnesses:
**DW-1 (Ram Singh)😗* Stated that Chhajju Ram had executed the Will of his own free will and that the defendants had been cultivating his land and performing his last rites. Under cross-examination, he admitted that when the Will was executed, he was a student and his brother was in service.
**DW-2 (Hariram)😗* An attesting witness to the Will, who deposed regarding due execution and attestation. He admitted, however, that Chhajju Ram was attended to by his wife throughout his life and that one of the beneficiaries was only between 8 and 10 years of age at the time of execution of the Will.
**DW-3 (Shanti Lal)😗* Examined to prove the signature of the deceased scribe, Som Nath, through recognition of his handwriting.
Trial Court's Findings
After careful examination of the Will (Ex. DW-2/A) and the evidence on record, the Trial Court identified several suspicious circumstances and held that the Will could not be treated as validly executed:
"Thus, taking into consideration all these suspicious circumstances, the only conclusion which could be reached at is that deceased Chhajju had not executed a valid will of his estate on 06.11.1974 in sound state of mind."
The specific suspicious circumstances identified by the Trial Court included:
- The Will disinherited the plaintiff on the ground that she possessed sufficient ornaments and cash — a vague and unsubstantiated assertion, devoid of any particulars as to the value or nature of such assets.
- The registration endorsement on the reverse of the Will contained multiple cuttings — the name initially entered (appearing to be "Laxmi Kant Bassi") had been altered to "Chhajju Ram" without the Sub-Registrar's initials or countersignature.
- The age of the testator as recorded in the endorsement was also altered, from 50 to 55 years, again without any official authentication.
- No convincing explanation was forthcoming from any of the defendants' witnesses regarding these alterations.
- The Will was executed in 1974, yet the testator continued to live until 1992 — nearly 18 years — without any apparent reason for such premature testamentary disposition.
The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff, by virtue of intestate succession, remained the owner in possession, relying on the Jamabandi entries and the site plan which depicted her residential premises.