High Court Cannot Interfere with Concurrent Findings Rejecting a Suspicious Will Unless a Substantial Question of Law Arises
Case Name: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 06 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 669 | Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Held: The Supreme Court held that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden lies on its propounder to satisfactorily explain those circumstances and satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court regarding its genuine execution. The Court further held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. Since the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had rightly found the Will to be suspicious and the propounder failed to dispel those doubts, the High Court erred in reversing their findings.
Summary: The dispute arose after the death of Chhajju Ram, an illiterate agriculturist who died issueless, leaving behind his widow, Bhambo Devi. Claiming herself to be his sole Class-I legal heir, she instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession over his property. The defendants resisted the suit on the basis of a registered Will allegedly executed by Chhajju Ram in 1974 in their favour, contending that the Will had been executed out of love and affection and in recognition of the services rendered by them to the deceased and his wife.
The Trial Court found several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. It noted that the deceased had disinherited his wife without any convincing reason, although evidence showed that she had cared for him throughout his life. The Court also observed that the beneficiaries were not proved to be close relatives as claimed, the alleged reason for executing the Will was unsupported by evidence, and the Will contained unexplained cuttings and alterations in the registration endorsement where the name of another person had been replaced with that of the testator without authentication by the Sub-Registrar. Holding that these circumstances cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the Will, the Trial Court declared the widow to be the owner in possession of the property. The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings.
The High Court, however, allowed the defendants’ second appeal by holding that the execution of the Will had been duly proved through one attesting witness in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and that the suspicious circumstances relied upon by the courts below were insufficient to invalidate the Will.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that proof of a Will does not end with proving its execution and attestation. Where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must remove every legitimate doubt and satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the Will represents the free and conscious act of the testator. The Court held that the suspicious circumstances identified by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were real and supported by evidence, including the unjust exclusion of the widow, incorrect recitals regarding the beneficiaries’ relationship with the testator, doubtful reasons for the bequest, unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement, and absence of convincing evidence explaining these circumstances.
The Supreme Court further held that findings regarding suspicious circumstances and the genuineness of a Will are essentially findings of fact. Since the First Appellate Court had recorded well-reasoned findings after appreciating the evidence, no substantial question of law arose warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. It held that the Will had not been proved in accordance with law, the plaintiff was rightly declared owner in possession of the suit property, and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.