A propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances to establish a Will’s genuine execution.

Praveen Trehan instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the Will dated 23 March 2004 executed by his mother, Smt. Krishna Trehan, was void; cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 29 September 2008 executed by Sudhir Trehan in favour of his wife, Aradhana Trehan; and partition of property bearing No. E-143, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi.

Praveen claimed that the property had been purchased and developed from Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”) funds and therefore belonged to the HUF. The defendants denied the existence of the HUF and asserted that the property had been purchased by B.D. Trehan in the name of his wife, Krishna Trehan, as her separate property.

The Trial Court held that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was not genuine. It consequently invalidated the Gift Deed and passed a preliminary decree declaring Praveen Trehan and Sudhir Trehan entitled to equal shares in the property.

The present appeal challenged the findings concerning the Will, Gift Deed, shares, abatement following B.D. Trehan’s death, limitation, and the reframing of issues.

1. Whether the Will dated 23 March 2004 executed by Smt. Krishna Trehan was genuine and validly proved in accordance with law.

2. Whether the Gift Deed dated 29 September 2008 executed by Sudhir Trehan in favour of Aradhana Trehan was valid, particularly when Sudhir’s title was founded on the Will.

3. Whether the suit property was HUF property or the exclusive property of Smt. Krishna Trehan, and consequently whether Praveen Trehan was entitled to a share therein.

4. Whether, after the death of B.D. Trehan and the settlement by Sunil Trehan, the property was correctly partitioned into equal shares between Praveen Trehan and Sudhir Trehan.

5. Whether the Trial Court’s findings were vitiated because the issues were reframed on 6 May 2023 and the judgment was delivered with reference to the earlier issues.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which requires a Will to be signed by the testator and attested by at least two witnesses, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under which at least one available attesting witness must be examined to prove execution of an attested document.

It relied on Daulat Ram v. Sodha, (2005) 1 SCC 40, and Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91, for the requirements of proving due execution and attestation of a Will.

The Court further applied the principle that where property is purchased by a husband in the name of his wife, Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 raises a presumption that the purchase was for the wife’s benefit, unless the contrary is proved.

A person claiming that property is HUF property bears the burden of establishing the existence of the HUF and the HUF nucleus or funds from which the property was acquired.

A transferee cannot convey a better title than that possessed by the transferor; accordingly, a gift founded on an invalid Will cannot operate beyond the transferor’s lawful share.

The Court also applied Order XIV Rule 11 and Order XX Rule 5 CPC principles, holding that differently worded issues do not invalidate a judgment absent material prejudice to the parties.

The Court found that Praveen failed to prove the existence of the alleged HUF, any HUF corpus or bank account, or that the suit property had been purchased from HUF funds. His admissions in cross-examination, together with the documentary title in Krishna Trehan’s name, supported the conclusion that she was the exclusive owner.

The Will, although supported by one attesting witness, was not considered satisfactorily proved because it was a single-page laminated handwritten document with an unexplained blank space occupying nearly one-third of the page, had been drafted by Krishna’s husband, and appeared to contain signatures and endorsements inserted in a non-natural sequence.

The attesting witness admitted that the Will was already prepared when she arrived and could not explain who had written portions of it or when the doctor’s endorsement was made.

The non-examination of the other attesting witness, who was Sudhir’s close friend, and of the doctor whose endorsement certified Krishna’s medical fitness, reinforced the suspicious circumstances.

Since the Will was invalid, Sudhir could not claim the entire property under it. The Gift Deed in favour of Aradhana was therefore ineffective as to the share inherited by Praveen, though it could operate to the extent of Sudhir’s lawful share.

On Krishna’s intestate death, the property devolved upon her husband and three sons. Following Sunil’s settlement and B.D. Trehan’s subsequent death, the remaining claims were between Praveen and Sudhir, justifying equal shares.

The objection regarding reframed issues failed because the issues substantially addressed the same questions and the appellants demonstrated no prejudice.

The Gift Deed dated 29 September 2008 was held ineffective insofar as it purported to transfer Praveen Trehan’s share, while it could operate only against Sudhir Trehan’s lawful share.

The preliminary decree declaring Praveen Trehan and Sudhir Trehan entitled to equal one-half shares in the suit property was affirmed. The pending applications were also disposed of.