Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Probate of 1943 Will

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

Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Probate of 1943 Will

Expert Evidence Found Inconclusive, Substantive Proof Prevails

District Judge’s Decree Restored, High Court’s Rejection Overturned

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 31, 2026:

In a landmark judgment delivered on 13 September 1963, the Supreme Court of India resolved a long-standing probate dispute in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives & Ors. The case revolved around the authenticity of a will allegedly executed on 29 August 1943. The central question was whether the testator’s signature on the will was genuinely affixed at that time or added later.

The Calcutta High Court had earlier refused probate, relying heavily on the testimony of a handwriting expert who cast doubt on the signature’s genuineness. However, the Supreme Court, emphasized that expert evidence is inherently inconclusive and cannot outweigh substantive oral and intrinsic proof. The Court noted that multiple witnesses and surrounding circumstances strongly supported the execution of the will in 1943.

The bench, comprising Justices P.B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, and J.R. Mudholkar, unanimously held that the High Court erred in rejecting probate solely on expert testimony. The ruling reinstated the District Judge’s decree granting probate, reaffirming the principle that expert opinion must remain subordinate to direct and substantive evidence.

This decision is significant in Indian probate law, underscoring that while handwriting experts may assist courts, their opinions cannot override credible oral testimony and intrinsic evidence. The judgment strengthened the evidentiary value of substantive proof in will disputes, ensuring that technical doubts do not unjustly defeat genuine testamentary intentions.

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

1.         Facts of the Case:

The appellants, sons of Ramtaran Banerjee (testator), sought probate of a will dated 29 August 1943. The testator, aged 97 at death (1 April 1947), had executed several property transfers during his lifetime. The will, wholly in his handwriting, was alleged to be his last testament. Other sons opposed probate, alleging lack of due execution, testamentary incapacity, and coercion. The District Judge held the will genuine, duly executed and attested, and granted probate. The High Court reversed, accepting a handwriting expert’s opinion that the signature was made after 1943.

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Proof of due execution and attestation under Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925.

(ii).       Role and value of expert evidence under Sections 3 & 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(iii).      Burden of proof and removal of suspicious circumstances in propounding a will.

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 63, 289.

(ii).       Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 3, 45.

4.         Judgments Referred:

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

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

(ii).       Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, (1961) 08 SC CK 0021.