Murthy & Others v. C. Saradambal & Others: Supreme Court Declares Will Invalid

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

 

Murthy & Others v. C. Saradambal & Others: Supreme Court Declares Will Invalid

 

Apex Court Restores Trial Court’s Finding of Concoction

 

Suspicious Circumstances Around Bed-Ridden Testator Proved Fatal

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 20, 2026

Also Read: Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors.: Supreme Court Rejects Probate of Suspicious Will

 

In a decisive judgment delivered on 10 December 2021, the Supreme Court of India in Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010; (2021) 12 SC CK 0037) addressed the contentious issue of a disputed Will executed just fifteen days before the testator’s death. The Division Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.V. Nagarathna overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the trial court’s finding that the Will was concocted and not proved in accordance with law.

Also Read: V. Kalyanaswamy (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (Dead) by LRs & Ors.: Supreme Court Affirms Absolute Ownership of Widow

The dispute arose when a daughter-in-law produced the Will after a delay of fifteen years, claiming exclusive rights while excluding the testator’s daughters. The Supreme Court noted several suspicious circumstances: the testator was bed-ridden and gravely ill at the time of execution, the unexplained delay in producing the Will, discrepancies in witness testimony, and inconsistencies in the signature. These factors, taken together, cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the document. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving a Will lies squarely on the propounder, and in this case, the evidence fell short of the legal standard.

Also Read: Top 123 Supreme Court Judgments on Wills

By allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s reversal and restored the trial court’s conclusion that the Will was not genuine. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in scrutinizing testamentary documents, especially when they emerge under suspicious circumstances and exclude natural heirs. The decision reinforces the principle that mere production of a Will is insufficient; it must be proved free of doubt and in strict compliance with legal requirements.

 

Also Read: V. Kalyanaswamy (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (Dead) by LRs & Ors.: Supreme Court Affirms Absolute Ownership of Widow

 

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

 

14.28	Case Summary	:	Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(2021) 12 SC CK 0037: Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1110414/murthy-ors-vs-c-saradambal-ors
	Decided on	:	10 December 2021
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 25 to 37, 32 – 35, 36 – 43.

Also Read: V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs & Another: Supreme Court Upholds Registered Will

1.         Facts of the Case:

Testator E. Srinivasa Pillai executed an unregistered will dated 4 January 1978 bequeathing his residential house solely to his son S. Damodaran (excluding two daughters). He died 15 days later on 19 January 1978. After the son’s death in 1989, his widow C. Saradambal and daughters sought Letters of Administration based on the will. The testator’s daughters contested it as forged and fabricated. Trial Judge dismissed the petition (T.O.S. No. 20 of 1994). The High Court Division Bench reversed that decision and granted Letters of Administration. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

Proof and validity of will under Sections 63 & 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 — burden on propounder to remove all suspicious circumstances; scope of first appeal under Section 96 CPC and duty to give reasoned findings under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Indian Succession Act 1925 — Sections 45, 47, 59, 63 & 63(c)

(ii).       Evidence Act 1872 — Sections 67 & 68

(iii).      Code of Civil Procedure 1908-Sections 96, 100 and Order 41 Rule 31

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1958) 11 SC CK 0008;

Also Read: Aman Sharma and Another v. Umesh and Others: Supreme Court Upholds Valid Will, Confirms Plaintiffs’ Ownership

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/641441/h-venkatachala-iyengar-vs-bn-thimmajamma-and-others/]

 

(ii).       Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur (1976) 10 SC CK 0028;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/649331/smt-jaswant-kaur-vs-smt-amrit-kaur-and-others/]

 

(iii).      Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh (2008) 12 SC CK 0067;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/661748/bharpur-singh-and-others-vs-shamsher-singh/]

 

(iv).     Naranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 12 SC CK 0022;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/656962/niranjan-umeshchandra-joshi-appellant-hash-mrudula-jyoti-rao-and-others-respondent]

 

(v).      Anil Kak v. Sharada Raje (2008) 04 SC CK 0062;

Also Read: Ashutosh Samanta (D) by LRs. and others v. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and Others: Supreme Court Upholds Proof of Will Despite Absence of Witnesses

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/661382/anil-kak-appellant-hash-kumari-sharada-raje-and-others-respondent-1]

 

(vi).     Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cochran (2014) 09 SC CK 0058;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/685911/leela-rajagopal-vs-kamala-menon-cocharan/]

 

(vii).    Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 02 SC CK 0070;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/652697/santosh-hazari-appellant-hash-purushottam-tiwai-dead-by-lrs-respondent]

 

(viii).   B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, Civil Appeal No. 8259 of 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20146 of 2009);

            https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/662503/bv-nagesh-and-another-appellant-hash-hv-sreenivasa-murthy-respondent]

 

(ix).      Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar, (2010) 09 SC CK 0007.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/686953/vinod-kumar-appellant-hash-gangadhar-respondent]

Also Read: Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another: Supreme

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

A judgment of reversal by a first appellate court must assign reasons and reflect a conscious application of mind on factual findings and law; brevity is no excuse for absence of reasoning when reversing a trial court.

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

(i)         Where a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances serious illness of testator, unexplained delay of 15 years, discrepancy in signatures, attestors unknown to testator, and beneficiary’s active role the burden lies on propounder to dispel those suspicions by cogent proof.

(ii).       If suspicious circumstances remain unremoved, the will cannot be treated as valid.

(iii).      The first appellate court must record clear findings and reasons while reversing the trial court’s judgment; failure to do so vitiates its decision.