Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage — Supreme Court Validates Bhagubai’s Will, Declares Defendant a Trespasser

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

 

Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage — Supreme Court Validates Bhagubai’s Will, Declares Defendant a Trespasser

 

Suspicion Around Will Found Baseless by Apex Court

 

Plaintiff Secures Title and Possession Through Proven Testament

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 26, 2026:

 

In Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage (Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2002, decided on 9 January 2002), the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling on the validity of Wills and the importance of evidence in dispelling alleged suspicious circumstances. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Justice Brijesh Kumar examined the contested Will of Bhagubai dated 22 September 1963, which had been rejected by lower courts on grounds of suspicion.

best Supreme Court rulings on wills and probate of Madhukar D. Shende Case

The trial and appellate courts had dismissed the Will, citing factors such as Bhagubai’s advanced age, absence of a doctor during execution, the Sub-Registrar visiting her home, and the fact that attesting witnesses were classmates of the beneficiary’s son. These circumstances were treated as suspicious, casting doubt on the Will’s authenticity. However, the Supreme Court found these objections to be irrelevant and unsupported by evidence. The Bench held that mere conjecture cannot invalidate a duly executed Will.

The Court emphasized that Bhagubai was competent, in sound mind, and had executed the Will voluntarily. The attestation and execution were proved in accordance with law. Consequently, the Will was upheld as valid, and the defendant was declared a trespasser without any title to the property. The decree for possession and ownership was granted in favour of the plaintiff, Madhukar D. Shende.

This judgment reinforces the principle that suspicion must be based on tangible evidence, not assumptions. It underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting genuine testamentary dispositions from being undermined by speculative doubts, thereby ensuring rightful succession and property ownership.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

	Case Summary	:	Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage.
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(2002) 01 SC CK 0024: Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2002.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/653626/madhukar-d-shende-vs-tarabai-aba-shedage/
	Decided on	:	9 January 2002
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar. (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 3 to 16

1.         Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed ownership of property C.T.S. No.876, Shaniwar Peth, Satara (218sq. m.) originally owned by Bhagubai who died on 24.09.1963. He asserted title under a will dated 22.09.1963 executed by Bhagubai in favour of her sister’s daughter Chingubai, followed by a registered sale deed (24.09.1976) from Chingubai to him. The defendant claimed title through an oral gift by Babu Kanha Mali and also by adverse possession. The trial court, first appeal, and High Court all dismissed the plaintiff’s suit holding the will unproved.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Proof of will -requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(ii).       Role of suspicious circumstances — whether mere

conjecture can invalidate an otherwise proved will.

(iii).      Evidentiary relevance of prior judgments inter partes under Sections 11, 13 & 35 Evidence Act.

(iv).     Doctrine of res judicata vs. relevancy of prior findings.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

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

(ii).       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 11, 13, 35, 68

(iii).      Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K.M. Krishnaiah, (1998) 03 AHC CK 0053. https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/293296/tirumala-tirupati-devasthanams-vs-kmkrishnaiah]

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

Suspicion cannot substitute proof. Courts must evaluate wills objectively and not with a predetermined distrust. Absence of medical evidence or age of testator does not invalidate a will if legal requirements of execution and attestation are met. Judicial process should not be “vitiated by irrelevant