Raj Kumari and Others v. Surinder Pal Sharma (2019): Supreme Court Clarifies Proof of Wills under Section 68

Raj Kumari and Others v. Surinder Pal Sharma (2019): Supreme Court Clarifies Proof of Wills under Section 68

 

Registration Alone Cannot Cure Defects in Attestation

 

Judicial Conscience Must Be Satisfied in Suspicious Circumstances

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: April 14, 2026: 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumari and Others v. Surinder Pal Sharma (2019), Civil Appeal No. 9683 of 2019, is a landmark decision that continues to shape succession law in India. The case revolved around the validity of a Will allegedly executed by Suhagwanti, an illiterate testatrix, which conferred her entire property on one son, Surinder Pal, while excluding her other children. The judgment is frequently cited by lawyers because it clarifies the mandatory requirements for proving a Will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while also reinforcing the principle that registration alone cannot substitute for proper attestation.

 

 

Case Title: Raj Kumari and Others v. Surinder Pal Sharma, (2019) 12 SC CK 0096 – a crucial Supreme Court judgment on wills and succession law addressing proof of testamentary documents, suspicious circumstances, and legal requirements for valid execution of a Will.

For deeper insights into probate law, attestation requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and evidentiary standards under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, explore this curated collection of Supreme Court judgments on wills and succession law .

[ Raj Kumari & Others vs. Surinder Pal Sharma – Complete Judgment ]

 

The Core Issue: Failure to Examine Attesting Witness

The respondent-propounder failed to examine Ramesh Kumar, one of the two attesting witnesses. The Supreme Court held that without examining at least one attesting witness, the Will cannot be proved. Section 71 of the Evidence Act, which allows proof by other evidence, applies only when attesting witnesses deny or forget execution—not when they are simply not examined. The High Court’s reliance on registration as sufficient proof was therefore legally unsustainable (Para 23).

 

Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding the Will

1. Illiterate Witness’s Signature Obtained Under Pretext
   Raj Kumari testified that her illiterate husband’s signature was obtained under the pretext of disinheriting her granddaughter. This raised grave suspicion about the genuineness of the Will (Para 25).
2. Absence of Reference in Earlier Correspondence
   Surinder Pal’s reply to a legal notice claimed absolute ownership but made no mention of the Will, which he allegedly possessed. This omission suggested the Will was an afterthought (Para 26).
3. Late Propounding of the Will
   The Will surfaced only during litigation, not earlier. The delay and lack of transparency heightened suspicion (Para 26).
4. Unnatural Exclusion of Heirs
   The Will excluded three children without explanation, conferring all property on one son. Such an unnatural disposition required strict proof (Paras 25–28).
5. Defective Drafting and Doubtful Nature of Document
   The instrument was oddly titled “Will Deed,” and even the propounder’s reply suggested ownership during the mother’s lifetime. The Court doubted whether it was genuinely a Will or mischaracterized later (Para 28).
6. Illiterate Testatrix
   The testatrix was illiterate, raising doubts about whether she understood the document’s nature. The Court questioned whether she executed it knowingly and voluntarily (Para 28).
7. No Other Evidence of Execution
   Despite registration, no corroborative evidence was produced. The Court held that execution had not been proved by other evidence as required under Section 71 (Para 28).
8. Overall Conduct of Propounder
   The propounder’s failure to disclose the Will earlier, contradictions in testimony, and reliance on technicalities failed to inspire judicial confidence (Paras 26–29).

 

Key Principles Reaffirmed

• Mandatory Attestation Proof: A Will cannot be proved unless at least one attesting witness is examined.
• Section 71 Limited Scope: It applies only when witnesses deny or forget execution, not when they are withheld.
• Suspicious Circumstances Heighten Burden: The propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions before a Will can be accepted.
• Registration Not Conclusive: Registration raises only a limited presumption and does not cure defects in attestation.
• Judicial Conscience Test: Courts must be fully satisfied that the Will represents the free will of the testator.

 

Why Lawyers Still Cite This Case

This judgment is a touchstone in succession disputes. Lawyers rely on it to argue that:

• Registration alone cannot prove a Will.
• Suspicious circumstances demand strict proof.
• Section 71 cannot be misused to bypass Section 68.
• Courts must apply the conscience test before accepting a Will.

It is often cited alongside Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma to reinforce the principle that suspicious circumstances heighten the burden of proof on the propounder.

 

 

[RESEARCH RESOURCES]

 

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

 

FAQs

Q1: Why was the Will rejected?
Because no attesting witness was examined, and suspicious circumstances remained unexplained.

Q2: Does registration prove a Will’s validity?
No. Registration only raises a limited presumption and cannot substitute for attestation proof.

Q3: What is Section 71 of the Evidence Act?
It allows proof by other evidence only when attesting witnesses deny or forget execution, not when they are withheld.

Q4: Why was exclusion of heirs suspicious?
Because three children were excluded without explanation, making the disposition unnatural.

Q5: What role did the testatrix’s illiteracy play?
It raised doubts about whether she understood and voluntarily executed the document.

Q6: What is the judicial conscience test?
Courts must be fully satisfied that the Will represents the free will of the testator, especially in suspicious circumstances.

Q7: Why is this case still cited?
Because it clarifies the mandatory proof requirements under Section 68, limits Section 71, and reinforces the principle that suspicious circumstances heighten the burden of proof.

 

FINAL NOTE:

This ruling remains a guiding precedent, reminding courts and practitioners that Wills must be proved not only by formal compliance but also by dispelling suspicion to satisfy judicial conscience. It continues to shape succession litigation across India.