Proof of Attestation Not Proof of Will's Genuineness When There are Suspicious Circumstances

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan, in Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors. (2026), held that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, mere examination of an attesting witness does not amount to proof of the Will's genuineness, and set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had upheld a disputed 1974 Will. 

What was the Background of Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• Bhambo Devi, widow of Chhajju Ram, instituted a suit claiming ownership and possession of her late husband's properties, asserting that he had died intestate and that she was his sole Class I heir. 
• The defendants relied on a registered Will dated November 6, 1974, under which the testator, an illiterate agriculturist who could only thumbmark documents, had allegedly bequeathed his entire movable and immovable estate to them. 
• The defendants claimed the testator executed the Will in their favour because they had looked after him. 
• The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court discarded the Will after finding several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. 
• The High Court, in second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings and upheld the Will, holding that once attestation was duly proved by the attesting witness, execution of the Will stood proved, particularly since it was a registered document. 
• Aggrieved, the widow's legal representative approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the true scope of proving a Will: The Court held that proving a Will is not merely an exercise in establishing the testator's signature and its attestation under Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is an exercise to satisfy the court's conscience that the testator signed the Will of his own free will, being aware of its contents and understanding the nature and effect of its dispositions. 
• On the propounder's burden where suspicion exists: The Court held that where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the propounder must explain those circumstances and dispel all reasonable doubts regarding its execution before the document can be accepted as genuine. 
• On what constitutes "suspicious circumstances": The Court observed that the phrase has deliberately been left open-ended by judicial pronouncements to cover any circumstance casting doubt on whether the Will truly reflects the testator's free will, though it would not extend to a mere figment of imagination or a doubting mind. Illustrative circumstances include a shaky or doubtful signature, a feeble or uncertain mental state of the testator, an unfair disposition of property, unjust exclusion of legal heirs (particularly dependents), and an active or leading role played by the beneficiary in the making of the Will. 
• On the specific doubts in this case: The Court found that the defendants failed to dispel several legitimate doubts, namely: 
  • The Will completely excluded the testator's wife, his sole Class I heir, while conferring the entire estate on persons who were not even close relatives. 
  • The beneficiaries were described as the testator's nephews, though no such relationship was established in evidence. 
  • Unauthenticated alterations existed on the reverse of the registered Will, where the name "Laxmi Kant" in the registration endorsement had been struck off and replaced with "Chhajju" at multiple places, without the Sub-Registrar's initials or authentication. 
• On the role of attesting-witness examination: The Court held that examination of an attesting witness is not an empty procedural formality. The propounder continues to bear the onus of dispelling suspicious circumstances surrounding the genuineness and authenticity of the Will, even where attestation has been proved. 
• On relief granted: The Court allowed the appeal, restored the decisions of the First Appellate Court and Trial Court, declared the widow to be the owner of the suit property, and discarded the disputed Will. 

What is Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925? 

Section 63– Execution of Unprivileged Wills: 

Applies to every testator other than a soldier in actual warfare/expedition, an airman similarly employed, or a mariner at sea. Such testators must execute their Will as follows: 

• Signing requirement: The testator must sign or affix his mark to the Will himself, or have it signed by another person in his presence and under his direction. 
• Placement of signature: The signature or mark (whether of the testator or of the person signing on his behalf) must be positioned so as to show it was intended to give effect to the document as a Will. 
• Attestation by witnesses: The Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have either: (i) seen the testator sign or affix his mark, or (ii) seen another person sign the Will in the testator's presence and by his direction, or (iii) received a personal acknowledgment from the testator of his signature/mark or of the other person's signature. 
• Witness signature: Each attesting witness must sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it is not necessary for all witnesses to be present at the same time. 
• No prescribed form: No particular form of attestation is required by law.