Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

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

 

Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

 

Execution Alone Does Not Prove Genuineness

 

Case Remanded for Fresh Evaluation of Evidence

Also Read: Derek A C Lobo & Others v. Ulric M A Lobo (Dead) by Lrs. & Others: Supreme Court Confirms Probate of Mother’s Will

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 19, 2026:

 

In Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho (Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009, decided on 2 January 2025), the Supreme Court of India clarified a vital principle in succession law: proof of execution of a Will under Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act does not automatically establish its genuineness. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia restored the approach of the Single Judge, emphasizing that suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will must be fully dispelled by the propounder.

Also Read: Savitri Bai & Another v. Savitri Bai: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Will Over Sale Deed

The dispute arose when the Single Judge found the Will validly executed but suspicious, citing doubts about its authenticity. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, treating the Will as genuine solely based on execution. The Supreme Court, however, held that judicial scrutiny does not end with proof of signatures and attestation. Courts must also examine whether the document is free from suspicious circumstances, such as undue influence, inconsistencies, or questionable conduct of beneficiaries.

The apex court ruled that the propounder of a Will carries the burden of removing every suspicion attached to it. Since this had not been adequately addressed, the matter was remanded for fresh evaluation of evidence, ensuring that the genuineness of the Will is tested beyond mere compliance with procedural requirements.

Also Read: Thangam & Another v. Navamani Ammal: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Registered Will

This judgment reinforces the principle that succession disputes require a holistic examination of both execution and surrounding circumstances. It strengthens safeguards against misuse of Wills and protects rightful heirs from being excluded through documents clouded by doubt.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Also Read: Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction for Rent Default

1.         Facts of the Case:

The respondent, Myra Philomena Coelho, filed a petition for Letters of Administration (LoA) with the Will annexed of her late mother Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho, who died on 24-11-1985. The Will dated 07-07-1982 bequeathed properties equally among two sons and the daughter (plaintiff). Another son, Victor, filed a caveat, later pursued by his widow after his death. The petition was converted into a Testamentary Suit No. 33 of 1999. The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the suit holding the Will as “duly executed but surrounded with suspicious circumstances.” On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that once the Will is found genuine, suspicious circumstances cannot be revisited.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Distinction between “valid execution” and “genuineness” of a Will.

(ii).       Role of suspicious circumstances even after compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

(iii).      Duty of the Court to be satisfied that the Will is not only formally valid but also free from suspicion before granting probate or LoA.

(iv).     Scope of appellate interference with the reasoned findings of the Single Judge in testamentary jurisdiction.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63

(ii).       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta (2020) 05 SC CK 0022,

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1034363/kavita-kanwar-vs-pamela-mehta-ors/

Also Read: Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others: Supreme Court Rejects Suspicious Will, Restores Equal Shares

 

(ii).       Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo, (2023) 12 SC CK 0034.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1214480/derek-a-c-lobo-ors-vs-ulric-m-a-lobodead-by-lrs-ors/

 

(iii).      Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead through Lrs.), (2023) 11 SC CK 0020.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1183439/moturu-nalini-kanth-vs-gainedi-kaliprasad-dead-through-lrs/

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

The Court clarified that “holding that a Will is validly executed” and “holding that a Will is genuine” are not the same. Even if a Will is proved to have been executed per statutory requirements, the Court must still examine whether it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. A Will may be legally executed yet remain unworthy of acceptance if suspicions are not satisfactorily dispelled.

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

The Division Bench erred in equating due execution of a Will with its genuineness. The Supreme Court held that the test of genuineness includes removing all suspicious circumstances. The High Court’s finding that suspicious circumstances cannot be examined after affirming genuineness was incorrect. Proper appreciation of evidence requires both procedural validity and satisfaction of conscience regarding genuineness.

 

7.         Final Ruling:

(i).        Appeal Allowed.

(ii).       Impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside.

Also Read: Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

(iii).      Matter remanded to the Bombay High Court Division Bench for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

(iv).     Clarified that the Supreme Court made no observation on merits, and the High Court must decide the matter expeditiously (preferably within six months).

 

8.         Gist Highlighting Dispute with Final Decision:

The dispute centered on whether a Will found to be “validly executed” automatically implies “genuine and free from suspicion.” The Single Judge found the Will validly executed but suspicious; the Division Bench reversed this, treating the Will as genuine. The Supreme Court restored the Single