In Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., 2026 INSC 669, the Supreme Court considered whether a Will favouring distant relatives while excluding the widow was suspicious. The Court held that disinheriting a wife is not suspicious in every case. However, where the widow lived with the testator, cared for him, had cordial relations with him, and was his sole Class I heir, her exclusion in favour of distant relatives requires a convincing explanation. The propounder must remove the suspicion and satisfy the conscience of the Court.
Challenge to the Will
The dispute concerned the property of Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist who died issueless. His wife, Bhambo Devi, instituted a civil suit claiming that her husband had died intestate and that she was consequently the sole owner of the property left behind by him.
According to the widow, the defendants had obtained mutation of the property in their favour based on a Will allegedly executed by Chhajju Ram on 6 November 1974. She denied that her husband had ever executed the Will and alleged that the document was forged and the result of fraud and undue influence.
The defendants relied upon the registered Will and claimed that Chhajju Ram had voluntarily bequeathed his movable and immovable properties to them because they had served him and his wife, looked after their needs, and cultivated the agricultural land.
The crucial dispute, therefore, concerned the genuineness and valid execution of the Will.
What Are Suspicious Circumstances?
Suspicious circumstances are factors that create a genuine doubt about whether a Will reflects the free, conscious, and informed intention of the testator. These may include an unnatural or unfair distribution of property, unjust exclusion of legal heirs or dependants, a doubtful signature, uncertainty about the testator’s mental capacity, active participation of beneficiaries in the execution of the Will, or unexplained alterations in the document. However, such suspicion must be real, germane, and valid, and not merely based on conjecture or the imagination of a doubting mind.
Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding a Will Are Questions of Fact
In Mansinghrao Yeshwant Rao Patil & Ors. v. Ramchandra Govindrao Patil & Ors., (1954) 1 SCC 688, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed:
“ … The use of time-honored phrases like “the conscience of the Court being satisfied” cannot convert a question of fact into one of law. The phrase is only a rule of prudence and is nothing more than a picturesque way of saying that when the legal heirs to property are being divested in whole, or in part, of their inheritance by a man who is no longer available for examination as a witness great caution should be employed before upholding such an act. But despite all this the question remains one of fact.”
Why Did the Trial Court Doubt the Will?
The Trial Court examined the Will, the testimony of the attesting witness, the circumstances surrounding its execution, and the conduct of the parties.
The Court found several circumstances that raised doubts about the genuineness of the Will. The testator’s wife was completely excluded from succession despite evidence that she had cordial relations with her husband and had cared for him during his lifetime. The Will stated that she possessed sufficient jewellery and cash, but provided no details regarding their value or any arrangement for her future maintenance.
The defendants claimed that the property was given to them because they had served and cared for the testator. However, the evidence did not satisfactorily establish the nature or extent of those services.
The Court also noticed alterations on the registration endorsement on the reverse side of the Will. The name “Laxmi Kant Bassi” appeared to have been deleted and replaced with “Chhajju Ram” at several places. These changes were not initialled by the Sub-Registrar, and no satisfactory explanation was offered.
Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the Trial Court held that the Will was surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances and declared the widow owner in possession of the property.
First Appellate Court Affirms the Suspicion
The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the propounders had failed to explain several suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. These included the unjustified exclusion of the testator’s wife, the doubtful relationship and alleged services of the beneficiaries, the execution of the Will nearly eighteen years before the testator’s death, non-examination of an available attesting witness, and unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement. Accordingly, the Will was discarded.
High Court Reverses the Concurrent Findings
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the testimony of one attesting witness sufficiently proved the execution of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It considered the non-examination of the second witness, the residence of the attesting witnesses in another village, and the alterations to the registration endorsement insufficient to invalidate the Will. The High Court consequently dismissed the widow’s suit, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Allowed the Appeal
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Court restored the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s decision in favour of the widow.
The Supreme Court held that the cumulative effect of the unnatural exclusion of the widow, unsupported reasons for benefiting the defendants, doubtful claims regarding the relationship and services of the beneficiaries, and unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement created legitimate suspicions that the propounders had failed to dispel.
Proving Attestation Is Only the First Step
Proof of statutory execution and attestation does not automatically establish the genuineness of a Will. Compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and the applicable evidentiary requirements is only the first stage.
The judicial inquiry is completed only when the Court is satisfied that the testator executed the Will voluntarily, understood its contents, appreciated the nature and effect of the dispositions made, and acted without circumstances creating legitimate doubts about the authenticity of the testamentary act.
Where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder bears the additional burden of offering a cogent and convincing explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that formal proof of execution and attestation is not sufficient to establish a Will when genuine suspicious circumstances surround it. The propounder must dispel such suspicions and satisfy the Court’s judicial conscience that the Will reflects the testator’s free and informed intention.
While exclusion of a wife does not automatically make a Will suspicious, disinheriting a wife who was the sole natural heir, maintained cordial relations with the testator, and cared for him, in favour of distant relatives without a convincing explanation may constitute a suspicious circumstance.
The Court further held that concurrent findings of fact regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will cannot be reversed by the High Court in a second appeal merely by reappreciating the evidence. In the absence of perversity or a substantial question of law warranting interference, the High Court cannot substitute its own factual conclusions for those reasonably reached by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court under Section 100 CPC.
Conclusion
The decision in Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors. reiterates that testamentary freedom does not prevent courts from carefully examining circumstances that cast legitimate doubts on the genuineness of a Will. A person is undoubtedly free to distribute property according to their wishes and may even exclude natural heirs from succession.
However, where the disposition appears unnatural, and the surrounding circumstances raise genuine doubts, the person relying upon the Will must provide a credible explanation.
A registered Will supported by the testimony of an attesting witness may still fail if important suspicious circumstances remain unexplained.
By restoring the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must examine the entire factual setting surrounding a testamentary disposition.
Where a devoted spouse and sole natural heir is excluded in favour of distant relatives, and the reasons offered for doing so are inconsistent with the evidence, courts are justified in demanding a convincing explanation before accepting the Will as the genuine expression of the testator’s final wishes.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
