logo
Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC

Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC

News185 days ago
The SC said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court
The Supreme Court said on Thursday that only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the will be accepted as a genuine one.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court to ascertain whether the will propounded had been duly proved.
'Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator," the bench said.
The court pointed out a will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that is examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses.
The court dismissed an appeal filed by Gurdial Singh through his legal representatives and affirmed the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declared Jagir Kaur, wife of Maya Singh, as the owner and in possession of the suit land.
The appellant was nephew of Maya Singh, who died in 1991. He claimed Maya Singh executed a will in 1991 bequeathing land, measuring 67 karnals and 4 marlas to him. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held him as the lawful owner of the land, finding the will as genuine. The First Appellate Court at Amritsar upheld the judgment and the decree passed in the appellant's suit.
The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the suspicious circumstance namely, non-mention of first respondent, who was the wife of the testator Maya Singh and the reasons for her disinheritance in the will exposed absence of 'free disposing mind' of the testator.
Examining the appeal, the court held, a cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the will, gave rise to serious doubt that the will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the 'free will' of the testator.
The bench said deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind execution of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.
However, the court emphasised, the prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act.
The bench pointed out in Ram Piari Vs Bhagwant & Ors (1993) this court held when suspicious circumstance exists, courts should not be swayed by due execution of the will alone.
When unusual features appear in a will or unnatural circumstances surround its execution, the court must undertake a close scrutiny and make an overall assessment of the unusual circumstances before accepting the will, the bench added.
In the case, the bench said, 'We have no hesitation to hold that non-mention of first respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant."
Court noted Jagir Kaur unequivocally stated that she was living with her husband till his death and the specious rationale given that she may have been disinherited as Maya Singh's monies had been settled in her favour and she was entitled to pension is hardly convincing.
It pointed out, no evidence was led to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the will.
The bench further found the appellant's case was not only to propound the will in his favour but even to deny the very status of first respondent as Maya Singh's wife.
'When one reads the contents of the will, appellant's stand is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The will is a cryptic one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e. the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the first respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance," the bench said.
Court further noted the evidence on record showed first respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter's death. Nothing had come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator's conduct in accepting first respondent as his lawfully wedded wife.
Court said, non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case.
Further, it held, the Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of Maya Singh by first respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple.
'Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by male sapinda relations. Given this practice, first respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime. In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with first respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the will. Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself," the bench said.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
supreme court
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 18, 2025, 19:34 IST
News india Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order: No Arrest For 2 Months Following Domestic Violence Complaints Under IPC 498A
SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order: No Arrest For 2 Months Following Domestic Violence Complaints Under IPC 498A

India.com

time2 hours ago

  • India.com

SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order: No Arrest For 2 Months Following Domestic Violence Complaints Under IPC 498A

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court's guidelines regarding complaints/FIRs filed under the Domestic Violence Law (IPC 498A), which direct that accused persons should not be arrested for two months after the complaint is registered. The Supreme Court stated that the guidelines set by the Allahabad High Court will remain effective, and the concerned departments must adhere to them. The Allahabad High Court, in its 2022 judgment, issued these guidelines to curb the increasing trend of misuse of Section 498A, where the husband and his entire family are falsely implicated. The key instruction in the High Court's guidelines was that during a two-month cooling-off period after the FIR or complaint is registered, no arrest or police action will be taken against the accused. During this period, the matter will be immediately referred to the Family Welfare Committee in each district. In another development, the Supreme Court has directed an IPS officer to tender an unconditional public apology to her former husband and in-laws for the "physical and mental agony" caused by several false criminal cases she filed against them during their marital dispute, according to an NDTV report. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ordered the quashing of all ongoing cases in the matter and dissolution of the marriage, as the couple had separated in 2018. The apex court also ruled that the daughter will stay with her mother, and the husband and family can visit her. In its verdict, the court noted that the husband spent 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. The court held that the suffering they had to endure was irreparable and directed the officer to tender a public apology. "The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," NDT reported, quoting the judges. The judges said that the apology must also be published and shared on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and other similar social media platforms within three days of the order. They clarified that this apology should not be seen as an admission of guilt and will not affect any legal rights, responsibilities, or consequences under the law.

Renukaswamy murder case: SC hearing on bail plea of Darshan adjourned to tomorrow
Renukaswamy murder case: SC hearing on bail plea of Darshan adjourned to tomorrow

Hans India

time3 hours ago

  • Hans India

Renukaswamy murder case: SC hearing on bail plea of Darshan adjourned to tomorrow

Bengaluru: In a significant turn in the sensational Renukaswamy murder case, the Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing on the Karnataka government's plea challenging Kannada actor Darshan's bail to July 24, effectively granting the actor two more days of relief. Darshan, who was arrested in connection with the brutal murder of Renukaswamy, is currently out on bail granted by the Karnataka High Court. The state government moved the Supreme Court questioning the High Court's decision to grant bail to the popular actor. The petition was scheduled to be heard today but was deferred after Darshan's senior counsel Siddharth Dave requested more time. Speaking to the media, Dave explained, 'Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was to appear for Darshan, but he had to attend to another matter today. I received this case only last night, so it was not possible to prepare arguments overnight. Therefore, I requested an adjournment of one or two days, which the Supreme Court accepted. The matter will now be heard on Thursday, July 24.' Dave added that he would not be arguing about the grounds for Darshan's arrest but would focus on the merits of the bail itself. Legal experts believe the Supreme Court's observations could have a crucial impact on the actor's fate. Earlier, the Supreme Court had questioned why Darshan's bail should not be cancelled and observed that the High Court had not exercised sufficient caution while granting it. If the apex court cancels the bail, Darshan could face re-arrest, which would severely disrupt the production of his upcoming film Devil. In total, 17 people have been granted bail in the Renukaswamy murder case, including prime accused Pavithra Gowda (A1) and Darshan (A2). The Karnataka government has specifically sought the cancellation of bail for seven of the accused, including Darshan and Pavithra. As the high-profile case continues to grab headlines, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court's next move. A final decision on the bail plea is expected when the matter comes up again this Thursday.

Maha approaches SC against acquittal of 12 in Mumbai blasts
Maha approaches SC against acquittal of 12 in Mumbai blasts

Hindustan Times

time3 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Maha approaches SC against acquittal of 12 in Mumbai blasts

A day after the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 men convicted of planning and executing the July 11, 2006 serial bomb blasts on Mumbai's suburban rail network, including five on death row, the Maharashtra government on Tuesday rushed to the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the verdict and an urgent hearing of its appeal. Maha approaches SC against acquittal of 12 in Mumbai blasts Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, requesting that the petition be heard without delay. The CJI agreed to list the case for a hearing on July 24, even as he remarked: 'But we have been reading that some of them have already been released from jail.' Responding to the observation, Mehta acknowledged the development but added: 'The state still wants the appeal to be heard expeditiously.' The special leave petition challenging the High Court judgment was filed earlier in the day. The state's legal challenge argues that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment and seeks a stay on the acquittal to prevent further release of the accused. The acquittals triggered political outrage, with Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Monday calling the verdict 'shocking' and vowing to challenge it in the Supreme Court. The appeal comes in the wake of Monday's decision by the Bombay High Court, which overturned the 2015 convictions handed down by a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The High Court held that the prosecution 'utterly failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt,' describing the investigation as riddled with procedural lapses, unreliable evidence and grave violations of the accused's constitutional rights. The 2006 blasts were among the deadliest terror attacks in India's history, killing 188 people and injuring 829. Seven powerful improvised explosive devices, planted in pressure cookers, ripped through first-class compartments of Mumbai's crowded local trains within six minutes during evening rush hour. The carnage left behind mangled steel and shattered lives, and prompted a massive terror investigation led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). Within four months, 13 men were arrested by the ATS, which claimed that the attacks were orchestrated by former members of the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and aided by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The ATS further alleged that 12 Pakistani nationals had infiltrated India to provide explosives and training to the accused—claims that ultimately failed to stand judicial scrutiny. In 2015, the MCOCA court convicted 12 of the 13 accused, awarding the death penalty to five and life imprisonment to the others. One man, Abdul Wahid Shaikh, a schoolteacher who refused to confess, was acquitted by the trial court. One of the 13 accused died during the lengthy appeals process before the Bombay High Court. On Monday, the Bombay High Court bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam Chandak delivered a 400-page verdict that raised fundamental questions about the fairness of the investigation and trial. It described the prosecution's case as a 'deceptive closure' that undermined public trust while allowing the true culprits to remain at large. The high court pointed out that the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements, which formed the bedrock of the ATS's case, was deeply flawed. Most of these statements, recorded between October 4 and 25, 2006, bore tell-tale signs of being 'cut-copy-paste' reproductions and raised suspicions of being extracted under coercion. Several accused retracted their confessions during trial, alleging torture in custody -- a claim the court found credible in light of procedural violations. The high court also noted that the accused were not informed of their right to consult their lawyers before confessing, despite being represented by advocates on record. This, the court ruled, was a violation of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, it cast serious doubt on the credibility of eyewitnesses, including two taxi drivers and a few train passengers, who claimed to have seen the accused planting the bombs. Their testimonies, recorded more than 100 days after the incident and four years later during identification parades, were found to be unreliable. The test identification parades themselves were conducted by officials not authorised under law. Material evidence, such as recovered RDX, circuit boards, pressure cookers, soldering guns and maps, was also deemed inadmissible. The court found that the chain of custody was broken and that the items were not properly sealed before being sent for forensic testing, casting doubt on their origin and connection to the accused. Additionally, the high court raised questions about the applicability of MCOCA in the case and noted serious procedural lapses in invoking its provisions. Ends

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store