COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Dhani Ram (Died) Through LRs. and others v. Shiv Singh: Supreme Court Declares Will Invalid, Confirms Intestate Succession
Grave Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies and Execution Found
High Court’s Suspicion Affirmed, Property Succession Goes to Shiv Singh
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 20, 2026:
Also Read: Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors.: Supreme Court Rejects Probate of Suspicious Will
In Dhani Ram (Died) Through LRs. and others v. Shiv Singh (Civil Appeal No. 8172 of 2009, decided on 6 October 2023), the Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive ruling on a contested Will. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar upheld the High Court’s findings that the Will propounded by Dhani Ram was legally unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
The dispute centered on whether the estate should devolve under the alleged Will or through intestate succession. The Court scrutinized the evidence and found serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of attesting witnesses. Crucially, the requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act were not satisfied, as proper attestation and corroboration were missing. Neither the scribe nor the Sub-Registrar provided supporting testimony, further weakening the claim.
Also Read: Top 123 Supreme Court Judgments on Wills
The High Court had earlier inferred suspicious circumstances, pointing to the propounder’s active involvement in the execution process and inconsistencies in signatures. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that when a Will is challenged, the burden lies on the propounder to dispel doubts and prove due execution. In this case, the discrepancies and lack of credible corroboration rendered the Will invalid.
As a result, the Court confirmed intestate succession in favour of Shiv Singh, thereby dismissing the claim based on the disputed Will. This judgment reinforces the principle that strict compliance with statutory requirements and credible witness testimony are indispensable in proving testamentary documents.
The ruling serves as a cautionary precedent: courts will not uphold a Will if its execution is clouded by suspicion or procedural lapses, ensuring fairness in succession disputes.
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 |
: |
Dhani Ram (Died) Through Lrs. and Others v. Shiv Singh |
|
|
Court |
: |
Supreme Court of India |
|
|
Citations |
: |
(2023) 10 SC CK 0011: Civil Appeal No. 8172 of 2009. |
|
|
Link |
: |
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1179005/dhani-ram-died-through-lrs-others-vs-shiv-singh/
|
|
|
Decided on |
: |
06 October 2023 |
|
|
Coram |
: |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, (Division Bench) |
|
|
Relevant Paragraphs |
: |
Para Nos. 2–28 |
Also Read: V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs & Another: Supreme Court Upholds Registered Will
1. Facts of the Case:
(i). Leela Devi (also known as Leela Wati), widow of Sohan Lal, died on 10.12.1987. Her husband Sohan Lal had predeceased her and died intestate. Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, claimed that she had executed a registered Will dated 27.10.1987 (registered on 03.11.1987) in his favour, bequeathing all properties inherited from her husband.
(ii). Sohan Lal and his brother Devi Ram had inherited ancestral property from their father Giridhari Lal. On Sohan Lal’s death, Leela Devi became the sole heir. In the absence of a Will, Shiv Singh (son of Devi Ram) would have succeeded under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(iii). Shiv Singh challenged the Will by filing Civil Suit No. 200/1 of 1990 before the Senior Sub Judge, Solan. The Trial Court disbelieved the Will and decreed in favour of Shiv Singh, but the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and upheld the Will. The High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree, holding that the Will was suspicious. Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court.
2. Law Points Involved:
(i). Proof of execution and attestation of Will under Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(ii). Scope of Section 71, Evidence Act when attesting witnesses deny execution.
(iii). Effect of registration of Will and its evidentiary value.
(iv). Requirement of dispelling suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
(v). Applicability of Section 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in intestate succession.
3. Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
(i). Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 63(a), 63(b), 63(c).
(ii). Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 68, 71.
(iii). Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 15(1)(b), 15(2)(b).
4. Judgments Referred:
(i). Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, (1961) 08 SC CK 0021.
(ii). Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2002) 12 SC CK 0087.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/654452/janki-narayan-bhoir-vs-narayan-namdeo-kadam/]
(iii). Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria, (2008) 12 SC CK 0142.
(iv). Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 07 SC CK 0061.
5. Obiter Dicta:
(i). Mere registration of a Will is not conclusive proof of genuineness; registration can occur without true knowledge or consent of the executant.
(ii). Attesting witnesses must testify that each saw the testatrix sign and themselves signed in her presence; failure to satisfy Section 63(c) is fatal.
(iii). The propounder bears the burden of dispelling suspicion and proving execution by credible evidence.
(iv). Contradictions in the testimony of attesting witnesses, particularly on crucial facts (presence, signatures, execution), create serious doubt.
(v). Non-examination of the scribe or Sub-Registrar weakens proof where attesting witnesses contradict each other.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
(i). The Supreme Court held that the Will dated 27.10.1987 was not proved in accordance with Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act.
(ii). The two attesting witnesses — Lok Nath Attri and Chaman Lal — gave contradictory evidence.
Also Read: Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another: Supreme
(iii). Lok Nath Attri did not confirm signing in the presence of the testatrix, nor could he recall critical facts (date and timing).
(iv). Chaman Lal denied having seen Leela Devi sign and claimed he signed at the instance of Dhani Ram.
(v). The Court observed that these inconsistencies destroyed the evidentiary value of their depositions, and no corroborating evidence (scribe or registrar) was produced.
(vi). The Court reaffirmed that mere registration of a Will does not validate its execution when suspicious circumstances persist. Accordingly, the Will was held invalid, and Leela Devi was treated as having died intestate.
7. Final Ruling:
(i). Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld.
(ii). The Will dated 27.10.1987 (registered on 03.11.1987) held invalid.
(iii). Shiv Singh, being the heir of Sohan Lal, entitled to succeed to the properties under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(iv). Parties directed to bear their own costs.
8. Gist Highlighting Dispute with Final Decision:
The Will propounded by Dhani Ram was found legally unproved. The Court noted grave discrepancies between attesting witnesses’ testimonies, non-compliance with Section 63(c) requirements, and lack of corroboration from the scribe or Sub-Registrar. The High Court’s inference of suspicious circumstances — including the propounder’s active involvement and inconsistent signatures — was affirmed. The Will was thus declared invalid, confirming intestate succession in favour of Shiv Singh.
Read full Judgement Here:
Dhani Ram (Died) Through Lrs. and others v. Shiv Singh
Supreme Court of India
(2023) 10 SC CK 0011: Civil Appeal No. 8172 of 2009.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1179005/dhani-ram-died-through-lrs-others-vs-shiv-singh/
You Can Also Purchase the Book from here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
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 Keywords
- Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh case
- Supreme Court Will dispute 2023
- Civil Appeal No. 8172 of 2009 Supreme Court
- Section 63(c) Indian Succession Act
- Intestate succession Supreme Court ruling
- Indian inheritance law Will validity