Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others (2021): Supreme Court on Suspicious Circumstances and Burden of Proof in Wills

COURTKUTCHEHRY EXCLUSIVE: EXTRACTS FROM BEST SELLING BOOK: WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED

 

Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others (2021): Supreme Court on Suspicious Circumstances and Burden of Proof in Wills

 

Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Removed by Propounder

 

Appellate Courts Must Give Cogent Reasons

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: April 07, 2026:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others, (2021) 12 SC CK 0037: Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010 is a landmark in Indian succession law. It reaffirmed the principle that the propounder of a will must not only prove due execution and attestation but also dispel all suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court’s conscience. This case continues to be cited by lawyers because it provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating wills where illness, delay, and unnatural dispositions raise doubts.

A detailed explanation is available in these Supreme Court rulings on will validity. Supreme Court judgments on will validity in India , including the key case of Moonga Devi and Others vs Radha Ballabh, which explains important principles of will execution, proof, and succession law.

 

Testator’s Condition and Soundness of Mind

The testator executed the will on 4 January 1978 and died just 15 days later, on 19 January 1978. Evidence showed he was bedridden for ten months, paralysed, and unable to move or write. No medical testimony was produced to prove his mental fitness. The Court held it highly doubtful that he was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution. This reinforced the principle that where illness or incapacity is alleged, medical or credible evidence must prove mental soundness; absence of such evidence is fatal (Paras 25(v), 33(a)–(c)).

 

Unregistered Will and Signature Discrepancies

The will was unregistered, despite the testator’s son being a practising advocate. The attesting witness admitted the testator could not be taken to the Sub-Registrar due to illness. The Court found this omission suspicious. Further, the signatures on the will did not tally with admitted signatures on other documents, with even the letter “E” distinctly different. Such discrepancies cast grave doubt on authenticity (Paras 25(ii), 25(xvi), 33(e), 33(g)).

 

Delay in Producing the Will

The will was not disclosed for 15 years after the testator’s death and surfaced only when the daughters filed a partition suit. The Court held that unexplained delay in producing a will gives rise to presumption of fabrication unless convincingly explained. Custody of the will was also unexplained: though PW-1 claimed it was in the testator’s custody, it was later found in her husband’s almirah. This inconsistency added to suspicion (Paras 25(xi), 33(h)(i)–(ii)).

Attesting Witnesses and Scribe

The credibility of attesting witnesses was undermined. PW-2 was a friend of the propounder, not of the testator, and admitted filing an affidavit at counsel’s request. The scribe was not identified or examined, and the will did not mention who drafted it. The Court held that attesting witnesses must be credible and known to the testator; otherwise, the will collapses. The absence of a scribe’s testimony was fatal to proving intention and genuineness (Paras 25(xiii), 33(d)–(f)).

Unnatural Bequest

The will excluded the daughters entirely, giving all property to the son. The Court found this unnatural and unfair, warranting heightened scrutiny. In testamentary law, exclusion of natural heirs without explanation is a suspicious circumstance requiring closer examination (Paras 25(xviii), 30(f), 33(a)).

 

Appellate Court’s Duty

The High Court reversed the trial court’s findings without detailed reasoning. The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court must record specific reasons when differing from a trial court’s factual findings, especially when oral evidence and witness demeanour are involved. Failure to do so renders its decision unsustainable. The Court cited Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari and B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy to reinforce this principle (Paras 36–42).

 

Testamentary Court as Court of Conscience

The Court reaffirmed the rule in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1958): mere formal proof of signatures is insufficient. A testamentary court must be satisfied that the will truly represents the free and sound volition of the testator. Suspicious circumstances such as shaky signatures, serious illness, unnatural exclusion of heirs, or non-production of the will for years justify closer scrutiny. If suspicion remains unexplained, the will must be rejected (Paras 30, 33–35).

 

Why Lawyers Still Cite This Case

• Suspicious Circumstances Doctrine: Clarifies that illness, delay, and unnatural exclusion of heirs require heightened scrutiny.
• Burden on Propounder: Reinforces that propounder must remove suspicion, not just prove attestation.
• Medical Evidence Requirement: Establishes that proof of sound mind is essential when illness is alleged.
• Appellate Discipline: Limits appellate courts from reversing trial court findings without cogent reasons.
• Practical Utility: Provides a checklist of suspicious circumstances for courts and lawyers in will disputes.

 

 

RESEARCH RESOURCES:

Browse testamentary law judgments here. Click the link here: https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/123-supreme-court-judgments-on-wills/

 

EXTRACTS FROM BOOK, WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, By Dr Ravinder Kumar Anand. [📘 Buy Will Writing Simplified online: Amazon | Flipkart ]

 

 

Case Title Murthy and Others v. C. Saradambal and Others, (2021) 12 SC CK 0037: Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010.

 https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1110414/murthy-ors-vs-c-saradambal-ors/]

 

 

 

FAQs

Q1: Does serious illness of a testator affect validity of a will?
Yes. If illness or incapacity is alleged, medical or credible evidence must prove mental soundness.

Q2: Is registration of a will mandatory?
No, but non-registration in suspicious circumstances (e.g., serious illness) can raise doubts.

Q3: Does delay in producing a will matter?
Yes. Unexplained delay in producing a will after death raises presumption of fabrication.

Q4: Can exclusion of daughters or heirs invalidate a will?
Not automatically, but total exclusion without explanation is a suspicious circumstance requiring closer scrutiny.

Q5: What is the role of attesting witnesses?
They must be credible and known to the testator. If linked only to the propounder, credibility collapses.

Q6: What is the appellate court’s duty in will disputes?
It must record specific reasons when differing from trial court findings. Failure to do so makes reversal unsustainable.

 

 

BOOK REFERENCE:

[📘 Buy Will Writing Simplified online: Amazon | Flipkart ]