COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors.: Supreme Court Invalidates Disputed Will
Bench Finds 1995 Will Not Legally Proved
Probate in Respondents’ Favour Set Aside
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 24, 2026:
In a significant ruling on testamentary disputes, the Supreme Court of India in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008, decided on 19 December 2008) addressed the validity of competing Wills of late Jayantilal Kataria. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph scrutinized the evidentiary standards required for proving a Will under Indian succession law.
explore top will-related judgments in India of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Case
The respondents had propounded a Will dated 18 June 1995, claiming it to be the genuine last testament of Jayantilal Kataria. However, the Court found serious deficiencies in its proof. Firstly, the mandatory requirement of attestation was not satisfactorily established. Secondly, suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will were not adequately removed, leaving doubts about its authenticity. These shortcomings proved fatal to the respondents’ case.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in matters of probate, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to dispel suspicion and strictly comply with statutory requirements. Since the respondents failed to meet this threshold, the Court invalidated the Will and set aside the probate earlier granted in their favour. Consequently, the appeal filed by Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat was allowed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that Wills must be proved with unimpeachable evidence, and any lapse in attestation or unexplained suspicious circumstances can render them void. It serves as a reminder that succession disputes demand rigorous adherence to legal formalities to safeguard the sanctity of testamentary dispositions.
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 |
: |
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors. |
|
|
Court |
: |
Supreme Court of India |
|
|
Citations |
: |
(2008) 12 SC CK 0142: Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008. |
|
|
Link |
: |
|
|
|
Decided on |
: |
19 December 2008 |
|
|
Coram |
: |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph. (Division Bench) |
|
|
Relevant Paragraphs |
: |
Para Nos. 6–17, 8–12, 16–17. |
1. Facts of the Case:
Purshottam Manji Thakrar executed a Will dated 15.4.1978 in favour of respondents. He left two sons (Jamnadas and Jayantilal) and two daughters (Kasturben and Lalitaben). After his death in 1984, disputes arose regarding two later Wills allegedly executed by Jayantilal—one dated 31.1.1995 (propounded by appellant) and another dated 18.6.1995 (propounded by respondents). The District Judge granted probate for the Will of 18.6.1995 in favour of respondents; the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court limited its consideration to whether the Will dated 18.6.1995 was legally proved.
2. Law Points Involved:
(i). Requirements of valid execution and attestation of a Will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
(ii). Proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(iii). Meaning of “attestation” under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(iv). Burden of removing suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will.
3. Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
(i). Constitution of India, Art. 136
(ii). Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 63, 63(c), 276
(iii). Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68
(iv). Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 3
4. Judgments Referred:
(i). 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/]
(ii). Benga Behera v. Braja Kishore Nanda, (2007) 05 SC CK 0175. https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/660369/benga-behera-and-another-vs-braja-kishore-nanda-and-others/].
(iii). Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, (1990) 03 SC CK 0012.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/674194/ram-piari-vs-bhagwant-and-others/]
(iv). Smt. Guro v. Atma Singh, (1992) 03 SC CK 0011.
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/674862/guro-smt-vs-atma-singh-and-others/
(v). Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande, (2003) 08 SC CK 0086.
(vi). B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh, (2006) 10 SC CK 0054.
(vii). Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Vera Marie Vas, (1996) 04 SC CK 0152.
(viii). Anil Kak v. Sharada Raje (2008) 04 SC CK 0062;
(ix). Babu Singh v. Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh, (2008) 04 SC CK 0017.
5. Obiter Dicta:
Suspicious circumstances may appear from inconsistencies between the Will’s recitals and the evidence of attesting witnesses; even when one witness is examined, he must prove due execution and attestation by both witnesses. If one fails to do so, the Will remains unproved.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
For valid proof of a Will, compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act is mandatory; the propounder must prove not merely the testator’s signature but attestation by two witnesses, one of whom must testify to attestation by both. The Will must also be free from suspicious
circumstances. In this case, evidence of only one attesting witness failed to prove proper attestation or remove suspicious circumstances; therefore, the Will was not legally proved.
7. Final Ruling:
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court set aside. Probate granted to respondents in respect of Will dated 18.6.1995 was held invalid. No order as to costs.
8. Gist / Dispute & Final Decision:
The dispute revolved around competing Wills of late Jayantilal Kataria. The Supreme Court found that the Will dated 18.6.1995, propounded by respondents, was not proved in accordance with law since both attestation and the removal of suspicious circumstances were deficient. The appeal was thus allowed, invalidating the Will and probate granted in respondents’ favour.
Read full Judgement Here:
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
(2008) 12 SC CK 0142: Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008.
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/
Keywords: Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria, Supreme Court of India 2008, Jayantilal Kataria Will dispute, probate invalidated, attestation of Will, suspicious circumstances in Will, Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008, Justice S.B. Sinha, Justice Cyriac Joseph, Indian succession law.