Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others: Supreme Court Upholds Valid Will, Confirms Plaintiffs’ Ownership

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others: Supreme Court Upholds Valid Will, Confirms Plaintiffs’ Ownership

 

Krishan Kumar’s Will in Favor of Sushila Kumari Duly Proved

 

Appellants’ Claim Through Unproved 1975 Will Rejected

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 20, 2026:

Also Read: Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors.: Supreme Court Rejects Probate of Suspicious Will

 

In Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4638 of 2022, decided on 5 July 2022), the Supreme Court of India resolved a bitter property dispute involving rival Wills. The appellants staked their claim through Nand Kishore under an alleged Will of 1975, while the respondents relied on the succession of Krishan Kumar, who was recognized as the sole heir of Pt. Lahori Ram.

Also Read: V. Kalyanaswamy (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (Dead) by LRs & Ors.: Supreme Court Affirms Absolute Ownership of Widow

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari examined the validity of both claims. The Court found that the Will executed by Krishan Kumar in favour of Sushila Kumari was duly proved in accordance with law, satisfying the requirements of execution and attestation. In contrast, the appellants failed to establish the authenticity of the 1975 Will, which remained unproved and legally ineffective.

Also Read: Top 123 Supreme Court Judgments on Wills

The Court emphasized that in succession disputes, the burden of proof lies heavily on the party propounding a Will. Since the appellants could not discharge this burden, their claim to title collapsed. Upholding the findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners entitled to possession of the property.

Also Read: V. Kalyanaswamy (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (Dead) by LRs & Ors.: Supreme Court Affirms Absolute Ownership of Widow

This ruling reinforces the principle that courts will uphold testamentary succession only when the Will is proved with credible evidence. It also highlights the judiciary’s consistent approach in rejecting speculative or unsubstantiated claims, thereby ensuring certainty in property ownership.

By affirming the validity of Krishan Kumar’s Will, the Supreme Court provided clarity and finality to the dispute, securing the rights of Sushila Kumari and the plaintiffs as lawful successors.

 

 

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

 

	Case Summary	:	Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(2022) 07 SC CK 0003: Civil Appeal No. 4638 of 2022.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1131165/aman-sharma-anr-vs-umesh-ors
	Decided on	:	5 July 2022
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indira Banerjee, Hon’ble Ms. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 2–11

Also Read: V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs & Another: Supreme Court Upholds Registered Will

1.         Facts of the Case:

The dispute concerned ownership and possession of a multi-storey house at Mohalla Shahganj, Ferozepur. Plaintiffs (respondents before SC) claimed title through a Will dated 20.10.1993 executed by their father Krishan Kumar in favour of his second wife Sushila Kumari (their mother). After Sushila’s death, they became owners. Defendant No.1 (Nand Kishore), son from Krishan Kumar’s first wife, claimed title under another Will dated 09.12.1975 allegedly executed by their grandfather Pt. Lahori Ram and later sold the property to the appellants (defendants 2 and 3). Plaintiffs sought possession and mesne profits alleging illegal dispossession.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Proof and validity of competing Wills under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Evidence Act, 1872.

(ii).       Transfer of title by a person claiming under an unproved Will.

(iii).      Rights of bona fide purchasers and scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

-           Constitution of India – Article 136.

 

4.         Judgements Referred:

Trial Court (Ferozepur) judgment dated 03.11.2012.

First Appellate Court judgment dated 31.08.2016.

Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dated 18.05.2018 in RSA No. 6408/2016.

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

The Supreme Court noted that both alleged Wills of Pt. Lahori Ram (1957 and 1975) were not proved. Even if later discovery showed additional heirs, the defendants should have sought amendment to implead them; failure to do so barred new claims at appellate stage.

Also Read: Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others: Supreme Court Upholds Valid Will, Confirms Plaintiffs’ Ownership

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

Where a Will is not proved as per law, no title passes thereunder. Consequently, a transferee from a person lacking ownership cannot acquire better title than that of the transferor. The Will dated 20.10.1993 executed by Krishan Kumar in favour of Sushila Kumari was validly proved; hence, Sushila and thereafter her daughters (plaintiffs) became lawful owners.

 

7.         Final Ruling:

The Supreme Court found no perversity or illegality in concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal under Article 136. It held that the defendants (appellants) had no valid title, though liberty was granted to pursue appropriate legal recourse regarding the sale consideration.