COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through LRs & Ors: Supreme Court Upholds 1980 Will, Reverses High Court judgement
Due Execution and Secondary Evidence Accepted
High Court Found to Exceed Jurisdiction
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 21, 2026
In Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1960 of 2020, decided on 19 March 2020), the Supreme Court of India settled a contentious inheritance dispute concerning the validity of Chandu Ram’s Will dated 30 April 1980. The plaintiff had challenged the Will as fraudulent and suspicious, while lower courts had upheld its validity. The High Court, however, reversed those findings, casting doubt on the document’s authenticity.
The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta carefully examined the evidentiary record. The Court held that the Will had been duly executed and that secondary evidence was admissible to prove its contents. Importantly, the Court found no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. It emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act by interfering with concurrent findings of fact from the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
To understand similar rulings, check this detailed guide on Supreme Court decisions related to wills.
By allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, thereby restoring the validity of the Will and confirming the rights flowing from it. This ruling underscores the principle that once due execution is established and no suspicious circumstances exist; courts must respect testamentary freedom. It also highlights the limited scope of High Court jurisdiction in second appeals, reinforcing that factual determinations by lower courts cannot be casually overturned.
The judgment serves as a precedent in succession law, affirming the admissibility of secondary evidence and safeguarding the sanctity of Wills against speculative challenges.
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 |
: |
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others |
|
|
Court |
: |
Supreme Court of India |
|
|
Citations |
: |
(2020) 03 SC CK 0083: Civil Appeal No. 1960 of 2020. |
|
|
Link |
: |
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1032791/dhanpat-vs-sheo-ram-deceased-through-lrs-ors/
|
|
|
Decided on |
: |
19.03.2020 |
|
|
Coram |
: |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. |
|
|
Relevant Paragraphs |
: |
Para No. 2, 3, 5–7, 10–13, 21–23, 30–32, 33. |
1. Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff Sheo Ram challenged a Will dated 30 April 1980 executed by his father Chandu Ram in favour of grandsons (the sons of his brother Sohan Lal). He claimed fraud and violation of customary law. Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the Will valid; High Court reversed and decreed in favour of plaintiff, holding the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
You can also explore cases where courts accepted secondary evidence of lost wills.
2. Law Points Involved:
Proof and execution of Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act; admissibility of secondary evidence under Section 65(c) Evidence Act; scope of interference under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act (Second Appeal jurisdiction).
3. Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
(i). Indian Succession Act 1925 – Sections 63, 69;
(ii). Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Sections 65, 65(c), 68;
(iii). Punjab Courts Act 1918 – Section 41.
4. Judgments Referred:
(i). Pankajakshi (D) v. Chandrika, (2016) 02 SC CK 0149.
(ii). Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh, (2019) 07 SC CK 0083.
(iii). M. Ehtisham Ali v. Jamna Prasad. (1921) 07 PRI CK 0010.
(iv). Aher Rama Gova v. State of Gujarat, (1979) 03 SC CK 0008.
(v). H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, (1958) 11 SC CK 0008.
(vi). Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar, (1976) 09 SC CK 0025.
(vii). M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri, (1969) 02 SC CK 0018.
(viii). N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy, (2001) 08 SC CK 0033.
(ix). Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2002) 12 SC CK 0087.
(x). Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, (1995) 05 SC CK 0055.
(xi). Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma, (2014) 07 SC CK 0016.
(xii). Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon, (2014) 09 SC CK 0058.
5. Obiter Dicta:
No application under Section 65(c) is mandatorily required before leading secondary evidence if foundation for loss of original is laid. Courts should decide admissibility of evidence finally at judgment stage and not stall trial. Exclusion of natural heirs by itself does not render a Will suspicious.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
When original Will is lost, secondary evidence like certified copy from Sub-Registrar is admissible under Section 65(c) Evidence Act. If at least one attesting witness proves execution and attestation by another witness and the testator, requirement of Section 63 Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act is fulfilled. Absence of some natural heirs in the Will is not a suspicious circumstance. High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act.
7. Final Ruling:
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside. Decree of First Appellate Court restored. Suit of plaintiff dismissed.
8. Gist – Dispute & Final Decision:
Challenge to validity of Chandu Ram’s Will dated 30 April 1980 alleged to be fraudulent and suspicious. Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld Will; High Court reversed. Supreme Court found due execution proved, secondary evidence admissible, and no suspicious circumstances. High Court had exceeded jurisdiction under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act. Appeal allowed; plaintiff’s suit dismissed.
Read full Judgement Here:
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others
Supreme Court of India
(2020) 03 SC CK 0083: Civil Appeal No. 1960 of 2020.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1032791/dhanpat-vs-sheo-ram-deceased-through-lrs-ors/
You Can Also Purchase the Book from here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
Also Read: rules for proving execution of a will in Supreme Court