COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others: Supreme Court Rejects Suspicious Will, Restores Equal Shares
Unregistered Will of Kanaki Bala Ghosh Held Unproved
Trial Court Decree Granting 1/6th Share to Each Heir Restored
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 19, 2026:
In Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others (SLP (C) No. 23721 of 2022, decided on 11 December 2024), the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial ruling on the validity of Wills, reiterating that mere compliance with formal execution requirements does not suffice when suspicious circumstances remain unresolved. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh restored the Trial Court’s decree, granting equal shares to all heirs.
Also Read: Savitri Bai & Another v. Savitri Bai: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Will Over Sale Deed
The dispute arose over an unregistered Will allegedly executed by Kanaki Bala Ghosh. While the Trial Court found the Will unproved and granted each heir a 1/6th share in both Schedule A and B properties, the High Court reversed this finding, treating the Will as valid. On appeal, the Supreme Court applied the principles laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, which require the propounder of a Will to dispel all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
The Court noted that the scribe’s testimony was unreliable and that doubts persisted regarding the authenticity of the document. Since these suspicions were not adequately addressed, the apex court held that the Will could not be accepted as genuine. Consequently, the Trial Court’s decree was restored, ensuring equal distribution of property among all heirs.
Also Read: Thangam & Another v. Navamani Ammal: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Registered Will
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s consistent approach that proof of execution alone does not establish the genuineness of a Will. The decision strengthens safeguards against questionable testamentary documents and reinforces the rights of heirs to fair succession when doubts remain unresolved.
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
| 14.15 | Case Summary | : | Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh and Others |
| Court | : | Supreme Court of India | |
| Citations | : | (2024) 12 SC CK 0081: SLP (C) No. 23721/2022 | |
| Link | : | https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1214479/chinu-rani-ghosh-vs-subhash-ghosh-and-others | |
| Decided on | : | 11 December 2024 | |
| Coram | : | Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh | |
| Relevant Paragraphs | : | Para Nos. 2–24 |
1. Facts of the Case:
The dispute concerned partition of properties among the heirs of Tarani Ghosh and Nabin Chandra Ghosh. After Nabin’s widow Kanaki Bala Ghosh died issueless, plaintiffs (her husband’s nieces) and defendants became joint owners of all Schedule A, B(i), and B(ii) lands. Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive ownership under an unregistered Will (Ext. C) and Nadabi Patra allegedly executed by Kanaki Bala Ghosh on 15-05-1995. The Trial Court held the Will unproved and granted equal 1/6th shares to all. The High Court reversed, upholding the Will. Hence the appeal before the Supreme Court.
2. Law Points Involved:
Proof of execution of Will — requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872; necessity of attestation by two witnesses and proof by at least one attesting witness; burden on propounder to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will.
3. Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
(i). Indian Succession Act 1925 — Sections 59, 63, 63(c)
(ii). Evidence Act 1872 — Sections 45, 47, 67, 68
4. Judgements Referred:
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, (1958) 11 SC CK 0008.
5. Obiter Dicta:
The Court reiterated that a scribe’s attestation cannot substitute for that of an attesting witness. The object of attestation under Section 63(c) differs from mere drafting or writing of a Will.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
A Will must be proved in the manner prescribed under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Where evidence of attesting witnesses and propounder lacks material particulars, and the scribe’s role is doubtful, the Will remains unproved. Suspicious circumstances such as unfamiliarity of scribe with testator, absence of witness corroboration, and lack of clarity in evidence prevent acceptance of the Will.
7. Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Will (Ext. C) was not proved in accordance with law and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The High Court’s finding validating the Will was set aside; the Trial Court’s judgment decreeing equal partition of both Schedule A and B properties was restored. Appeal allowed; parties to bear their own costs.
8. Gist Highlighting Dispute with Final Decision:
Dispute centred on validity of an unregistered Will of Kanaki Bala Ghosh. The Trial Court found the Will unproved; the High Court reversed it. The Supreme Court, applying H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, held that the Will was not duly proved, the scribe’s testimony was unreliable, and suspicious circumstances remained. It restored the Trial Court decree granting 1/6th share to each heir in both Schedule A and B properties, allowing the appeal.
Read full Judgement Here:
Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh and Others
Supreme Court of India; dated: 11 December 2024; (2024) 12 SC CK 0081: SLP (C) No. 23721/2022
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1214479/chinu-rani-ghosh-vs-subhash-ghosh-and-others
Also Read: Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills
You Can Also Purchase the Book from here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
Also Read: Gopal Krishan & Others v. Daulat Ram & Others: Supreme Court Restores Validity of Will
OUR RECOMMENDATION: Check out 123 Key Judgements, as highlighted in the book, WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, for the quick research and reference purposes. Click the link here: https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/123-supreme-court-judgments-on-wills/
SEO-Friendly Keywords
- Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh Supreme Court judgment
- SLP (C) No. 23721 of 2022 Will dispute
- Supreme Court ruling on suspicious Will India
- Equal inheritance rights heirs Supreme Court
-
- Venkatachala Iyengar case Will proof
Also Read: N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Daughter’s Ownership Rights