Prem Bai vs Radhey Lal (D)Thr Lrs Mahendra Patel

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
1 FA-215-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
st
ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 215 of 2013
PREM BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHEY LAL (D)THR LRS MAHENDRA PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Umesh Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Avinash Zargar with Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi- Advocates for the respondents.
ORDER
The present appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs
arising out of the judgment and decree dated 01-03-2013 passed by the trial court
in RCSA No. 37-A of 2010 by Additional District Judge Maihar District Satna
where by the suit filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.
2. A suit had been filed by the present appellants before the trial court
seeking the relief of declaration that the will dated 17-05-1995 purported to be
executed by deceased Sunderlal Patel S/o of Ram Prasad Patel, who was the father
of the plaintiffs, be declared null and void being forged document on the basis of
which no rights accrue to the defendant no. 1. Relief of permanent injunction was
also sought against the defendant No. 1 along with relief of partition of 1/3 share
of deceased father of the plaintiffs with separate possession along with other
reliefs in relation to other movable properties of deceased Sunderlal Patel. A relief
of mesne profits of the suit land was also sought.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has vehemently argued
that the trial court has erroneously dismissed the suit of the present
appellants/plaintiffs by holding the will to be genuine documents and holding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
2 FA-215-2013
the same to be proved. It is argued that the deceased Sunderlal Patel S/o Ram

Prasad Patel had as many as six daughters, who are the present appellants/
plaintiffs. Despite he having six daughters, he is alleged to have executed a will in
favour of defendant no.1 who was his real brother. It is vehemently argued that a
person, when he leaves the line of succession in favour of some other person
different from his bloodline and changes the line of succession, then in itself it is a
suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of will. Hence, the trial court
should have declared the will to be null and void and an forged document only on
the ground that the will ignores the bloodline and vests the entire property in the
brother of the testator, though the testator had six daughters surviving him. It is
argued that the will in question does not take care of interests of his daughters,
though it discloses there are six daughters of the testator. It is further argued that
the testator died on 10-08-1997, and prior to his death the testator had written a
letter on letter-pad of Gram Panchayat of which he was Sarpanch, mentioning that
he has six daughters, and is having no son. His wife has predeceased him, and he
wants that all his six daughters should get all his lands, houses and tractors by
equally distributing them amongst themselves. Therefore, this letter filed
along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC be deemed to be the last will
and testament of the testator because it is later to be questioned will dated
17.05.1995. As this letter filed along with this application has been written on
15.05.1997, which is almost two years after execution of the questioned will, in
view of this letter, the questioned will loses its significance. It is argued that the
matter be remanded back to the trial court to record evidence as to this
letter/document dated 15.05.1997, because if this document gets proved, then the
entire substratum on which impugned judgment and decree has been passed would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
3 FA-215-2013
be wiped off, and the only natural consequence would be to decree the suit in

favour of the plaintiff's defendants.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents/defendants has vehemently
argued that the will in question is a registered will executed before the Registrar,
and the attesting witnesses have fully supported the will. There are no suspicious
circumstances attending the will, and a will is the wish of the testator and if the
testator wished to exclude the present appellants from succession to his
immovable property and movable agricultural property like tractors, then it was
the will of the testator which has to be respected. Only because the natural line of
succession has been deviated in the will it cannot be a reasonable ground to hold
that the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Therefore it is prayed to
affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal.
5. This court has heard the counsel for the rival parties at length and
perused the record.
6. Upon the perusal of the documents on record, firstly, the will Exhibit
D/1 has been seen by this court, which is dated 17..05.1995. The said document
is a registered document, registered with the Sub-Registrar. The said will
mentioned that the testator is 65 years old, and he is residing along with his
brother, Radhelal Patel. He has six daughters, and he has married off the
daughters, and they are happy in their matrimonial houses. He has already
distributed the gold and silver which he was having among all his daughters, and
now he is being looked after by his brother, Radhelal. He wished that the rituals
after death of the testator be carried out by his brother, Radhelal, and therefore, by
mentioning these reasons, he executed will for the agricultural lands as well as the
two tractors and houses of whatever share he was having therein in favour of his
brother. It is not in dispute that his brother is the co-sharer in such immovable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
4 FA-215-2013
properties, and he was leaving out his own share in favour of his co-sharer brother

by executing this will.
7. The question that whether a will can be said to be surrounded by
suspicious circumstances only because it deprives the natural successors of fruits
of the said property/ assets of the testator has been subject matter of judicial
interpretation time and again. Recently the matter was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy, 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 911. This was a case where the testator has bequethed the properties
by will to the Sister, though he had wife and children surviving him. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
32. The contention of the Appellants that the Appellants, being the natural
heirs of the testator, have been outrightly excluded without any reason and
that such exclusion constitutes a suspicious circumstance surrounding the
execution of the Will is legally untenable. It is well-established that mere
deprivation of natural heirs, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious
circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of a Will is to
interfere with the normal line of succession, as categorically held
in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs (1995
(4) SCC 495). However, in the case of Ram Piari v. Bhagwant (1990 (3)
SCC 364), this Court also held that 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 suspicious as
it does not give inking to the mind of the testator to enable the Court to
judge that disposition was a voluntary act.
33. This brings us to the next issue i.e., what are the suspicious
circumstances which may vitiate the disposition of a Will. In Indu Bala
Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose (1982 (1) SCC 20), this Court held that-
“8. Needless to say that any and every circumstance is not a
“suspicious” circumstance. A circumstance would be “suspicious”
when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal
situation or is not expected of a normal person.”
34. With regard to the prudence to be drawn while determining the
suspicious circumstances, all the Courts have unambiguously opined that
the Will in question was validly executed. It is trite to state that when the
validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
5 FA-215-2013
intention of the testator and the surrounding circumstances have also to be
seen. Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator,
by itself, cannot be construed as a suspicious circumstance so as to
invalidate a Will outrightly. A testator is legally entitled to dispose of his
property according to his own wishes, and unless the exclusion is
accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due
execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not render a Will invalid.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the exclusion of the natural heirs
cannot be sufficient to vitiate the Will in question, particularly when the
Will clearly specifies that the testator has not done any injustice to his
wife, children, or other relatives, and that he has given enough to his wife
and children who are residing at Bombay.

8. Therefore, it is clear that exclusion of natural heirs by itself does not
amount to suspicion circumstances, because the whole idea behind the execution
of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and nothing else. If the
testator did not want to interfere with the natural line of succession, then there was
no reason to execute a will.
9. This court has also gone through the evidence on record. There are two
attesting witnesses of the will, namely Shyamlal Singraul and
Achchhelal Patel. Shyamlal (PW-1), has deposed that he was working on the post
of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer on the relevant date and deposed that he
has signed on the said document Exhibit D/1. He did not see getting the document
type and in paragraph 3 of his deposition stated that the concerned clerk of the
Office of Sub-Register read out the will and then he himself read out the will and
then firstly Testator Sunderlal signed on the same and then this witness
Shyamlal signed thereupon and then the other witness Achchhelal Patel signed on
the will. Nothing could be culled out in his cross-examination to dispute these
assertions made in the deposition.
10. The second attesting witness, Achchhelal Patel (PW-3) has deposed in
para 10 of his deposition that he saw the Testator Sunderlal speaking out to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
6 FA-215-2013
typist and the typist typing out the will. In paragraph 13 of the deposition he stated

that firstly Testator Sunderlal signed on the typed will and thereafter he and other
witness Shyamlal signed on the type of will.
11. In view of such deposition, the necessary burden in terms of Section
63 of Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act has duly
been discharged to prove the the will Ex. D/1 which is a registered document.
12. The counsel for the appellant has vehemently tried to convince the
court to remand the matter in view of the documents dated 15.05.1997 filed along
with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This document is written on
plain paper letterhead of Gram Panchayat, and is a typed document
purportedly containing signatures of the deceased Testator Sunderlal Patel. It was
tried to be projected before this court that this document is the last will and
testament of the deceased Testator. However, this document does not contain
signatures of any witness and on the face of it, once this document does not
contain signatures of any witnesses, it cannot be treated to be a will and there is no
means by which this document purported to be signed by a person who is now
deceased, and having no witnesses mentioned thereupon can be proved like a will
in terms of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, read with Section 68 of Indian
Evidence Act. Therefore, no reasons are made out for this court to allow this
application and to remand this matter to the trial court to record evidence as to the
document dated 15.05.1997, because on the face of it, the document in absence of
attesting witnesses, can not be put to proof as a will.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pentakota
Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67 that initial onus is on
the propounder of the will to prove execution of the will and thereafter the burden
shifts to the party alleging undue influence or coercion in execution of the will to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46982
7 FA-215-2013
establish its case. That burden could not be discharged by the plaintiffs because

nothing could be proved by them that the testator was not in a sound and
disposing state of mind, that he did not sign out of his own free will, and that he
did not understand the nature and effect of the disposition.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any good reason to
interfere with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in
dismissing the suit.
15. The appeal is therefore, fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 06-07-2026
11:32:52