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

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

 

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

 

High Court’s Presumed Suspicion Rejected

 

Trial Court’s Finding on Forgery Restored

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 20, 2026

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

 

On 7 October 2021, the Supreme Court of India in V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Another (Civil Appeals Nos. 1376–77 of 2010; (2021) 10 SC CK 0031) delivered a crucial ruling on the genuineness of two competing Wills. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh reinstated the trial court’s findings, holding that the registered Will (Ex.P4, 1985) was validly proved, while the later unregistered Will (Ex.D1, 1986) was forged.

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

The dispute centered on whether the registered Will executed in 1985 or the unregistered Will allegedly executed in 1986 represented the true testamentary intention of the deceased. The trial court had found Ex.P4 genuine and Ex.D1 fabricated, but the High Court reversed this conclusion, citing “suspicion” about the circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that suspicion must arise from concrete facts and evidence, not from ethical or moral presumptions. The Court emphasized that statutory requirements for proving a Will had been satisfied in respect of Ex.P4, while Ex.D1 lacked credibility and authenticity.

Also Read: Top 123 Supreme Court Judgments on Wills

By restoring the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that registered documents carry greater evidentiary weight when properly proved, and that courts must not invalidate Wills based on speculative doubts. This judgment strengthens the legal position that suspicion must be fact-based and that testamentary freedom is protected when due process is followed.

 

 

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

 

 

	Case Summary	:	V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Another
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(2021) 10 SC CK 0031: Civil Appeals Nos. 1376-77 of 2010.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1103871/v-prabhakara-vs-basavaraj-k-dead-by-lr-anr
	Decided on	:	07 October 2021
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 7 (Trial Court findings), 9–10 (High Court view), 14–19 (Evidence & Registration Acts discussion), 21–23 (Section 96 CPC scope), 24–28 (Testamentary Court principles and findings), 30 (Final order).

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

1.         Facts of the Case:

Deceased Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi, spinster and maternal aunt of the appellant, executed a registered Will (Ex.P4, 04-09-1985) bequeathing her house to him. Her brother (PW-2) attested; her sister Kantha Lakshmi took her to the Sub-Registrar. After her death (22-08-1986), respondents her divorced brother-in-law and his son set up an unregistered Will (Ex.D1, 16-08-1986) in favour of the minor son claiming it replaced Ex.P4 and that respondent was a mortgagee. Trial Court (2003) decreed possession to plaintiff holding Ex.D1 forged; High Court (2006) reversed on ground of “suspicious circumstances” in Ex.P4 for excluding siblings and for insufficient attestation proof. Supreme Court appeal followed.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

Proof of Will under Sections 63 Succession Act & 68 Evidence Act; scope of Section 96 CPC (first appeal on facts); Order VI & Order VIII CPC (pleadings); Article 136 Constitution (SLP jurisdiction); judicial presumption under Section 114(e) Evidence Act; registration under Sections 17–18 Registration Act; estoppel u/s 115 Evidence Act.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Constitution of India-Art. 136;

(ii).       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Sec. 96, Order VI Rule 2, Order VIII Rules 2–5;

(iii).      Indian Succession Act 1925-Sec. 63;

(iv).     Evidence Act 1872-Secs. 3, 8, 17, 58, 68, 114(e), 115;

(v).      Registration Act 1908-Secs. 17, 18, 27.

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        Joseph Antony Lazarus v. A.J. Francis, (2006) 04 SC CK 0063;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658693/joseph-antony-lazarus-dead-by-lrs-appellant-hash-aj-francis-respondent]

 

(ii).       Mahesh Kumar v. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 03 SC CK 0027;

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

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/667710/mahesh-kumar-dead-by-lrs-vs-vinod-kumar-and-others/]

 

(iii).      Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 09 SC CK 0039;

            https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/661270/bachhaj-nahar-appellant-hash-nilima-mandal-and-another-respondent]

 

(iv).     Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 04 SC CK 0057;

            https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/661377/jagdish-singh-appellant-hash-madhuri-devi-respondent]

 

(v).      Sarju Pershad v. Jwaleshwari, (1950) 11 SC CK 0001;

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/650618/sarju-pershad-appellant-hash-raja-jwaleshwari-pratap-narain-singh-and-others-respondent]

 

(vi).     Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai, (1982) 11 SC CK 0034.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/670704/madhusudan-das-appellant-hash-smt-narayanibai-deceased-by-lrs-and-others-respondent]

 

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

5.         Obiter Dicta:

A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but of conscience; mere exclusion of relatives does not create suspicion absent other circumstances; registration is a supportive, not determinative, factor; first appellate court must respect trial court’s advantage in assessing witness demeanor and cannot substitute its view without cogent reasons.