Case at a Glance
An illiterate agriculturist in Himachal Pradesh died issueless in 1992, and his widow sued for a declaration of ownership. The defendants, who were not his relatives, relied on a registered will of 1974 leaving the property to them. The trial court and first appellate court discarded the will, but the High Court reversed in second appeal. The Supreme Court restored the widow’s decree, holding that the disinheritance of the sole Class I heir who cared for the testator, combined with his illiteracy, wrong recitals and uninitialled cuttings in the registration endorsement, left suspicion undispelled, and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist, owned the suit property and died intestate and issueless, according to his widow Bhambo Devi, in 1992. She filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 1993 seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner, an injunction and, alternatively, possession. The defendants relied on a registered will dated 6 November 1974 in their favour, on the basis of which mutation had been sanctioned on 14 August 1992.
The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court affirmed. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the defendants’ second appeal on 18 July 2016 and dismissed the suit. The widow died during the proceedings and Sardari Lal was brought on record as her legal representative. Before the Supreme Court the respondents argued the will was duly attested under Section 63 of the Succession Act and that the plaintiff’s pleadings were inconsistent and she led no evidence of fraud.
The Key Question Before the Court
Were the suspicious circumstances around a will disinheriting the testator’s widow dispelled, and could the High Court reverse the concurrent findings in second appeal?
Unnatural Disposition and Unexplained Suspicion
The Court first held that pleading fraud or undue influence in the alternative, without admitting execution, is permissible, and that the plaintiff’s non-examination was not fatal because the propounder of the will bears the burden of proving it. Applying H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, (1958) 11 SC CK 0008, Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2020) 04 SC CK 0030, it found that disinheriting the sole Class I heir, a wife who cared for him, in favour of non-relatives was unnatural. Together with the testator’s illiteracy, incorrect recitals about the beneficiaries’ relationship and services, and uninitialled cuttings on the registration endorsement, the suspicion was not removed. The timing of execution and the attesting witnesses’ village were not independently suspicious.
Whether suspicion is explained is largely a question of fact. The first appellate court’s finding was not perverse, so the High Court ‘exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the first appellate court.’ Since the plaintiff’s possession, found by both lower courts, was undisturbed, the Court held that ‘the Will was rightly discarded by the first appellate court and the trial court.’
What the Court Actually Held
- Pleading fraud or undue influence in the alternative is permissible, and the plaintiff’s non-examination was not fatal since the burden lay on the propounder.
- Disinheritance of the sole Class I heir wife, illiteracy of the testator, incorrect recitals and uninitialled cuttings together created suspicion that was not dispelled.
- Whether suspicion is dispelled is largely a question of fact; the High Court exceeded its Section 100 CPC jurisdiction.
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment set aside and the trial court’s decree, as affirmed, restored.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Wills that exclude a spouse in favour of outsiders face close scrutiny; propounders must explain the unnatural disposition.
- It limits second appeals in will disputes, where findings on suspicious circumstances are largely factual.
- It reassures heirs that they need not personally testify to challenge a will when the propounder bears the burden.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families and Heirs
- If a will excludes a spouse or close heir, point out who cared for the testator and the beneficiaries’ true relationship.
- Check registration endorsements for cuttings or uninitialled corrections.
For Counsel
- Remember the propounder must prove the will and dispel suspicion; the challenger’s non-examination is not fatal.
- Resist second appeals that re-appreciate facts on suspicious circumstances; cite this case on Section 100 CPC.
Key Takeaways
- The propounder of a will must dispel suspicious circumstances.
- Disinheriting a caring widow for non-relatives is unnatural.
- Alternative pleas of fraud and undue influence are allowed.
- High Courts cannot re-weigh such facts under Section 100 CPC.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a will that disinherits the wife be challenged?
Yes. Here the Court held that disinheriting the sole Class I heir who cared for the testator, with other circumstances, made the will suspicious and the propounders failed to dispel it.
Does the person challenging a will have to testify?
Not necessarily. The Court held the plaintiff’s non-examination was not fatal, since the burden of proving the will lay on the propounder.
Can a High Court overturn findings on a will in second appeal?
Only on a substantial question of law. The Court held that whether suspicion is dispelled is largely factual, and the High Court overstepped.
Conclusion
The judgment restores a widow’s decree decades after the dispute began and reiterates the classic law on suspicious wills. It also reminds High Courts that second appeals are not an occasion to re-weigh factual conclusions on suspicion.
Practical takeaway: Propounders of a will that sidelines close family must lead evidence explaining why; otherwise concurrent findings rejecting the will are likely to stand.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com