A propounder who fails to dispel suspicious circumstances cannot establish title through the disputed will.

The appellant claimed title to the suit property under a Will dated 5 December 2003 allegedly executed by Deivanayagam Naidu.

In two suits, he sought declaration of title and permanent injunction; a competing claimant relied on an earlier Will dated 20 January 1992.

A tenant separately sought an injunction against interference with his possession.

After a joint trial, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s title suits and decreed the tenant’s injunction suit; the first appellate court affirmed those decrees.

The appellant brought three second appeals.

The High Court dismissed the appeals, while setting aside the lower courts’ findings on the 1992 Will as unnecessary in the absence of all legal representatives.

1. Whether the appellant proved the Will dated 5 December 2003 and thereby established his entitlement to declaration of title and consequential injunction.

2. Whether the courts below’ concurrent findings in the title suits disclosed a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

3. Whether the tenant, whose tenancy and possession were admitted, was entitled to protection against eviction otherwise than through due process of law.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law is involved; concurrent factual findings supported by the record are not ordinarily disturbed absent such a question.

The Court stated that a Will’s propounder must prove it by examining an attesting witness and dispelling suspicious circumstances.

The judgment does not cite the specific statutory provisions governing execution and proof of Wills or any precedents.

It also applied the principle that a tenant in possession cannot be evicted except through due process of law.

The Court found that the 2003 Will was surrounded by unresolved suspicious circumstances: the attestors were close to the appellant but could not speak to the testator’s family background; no adequate explanation was given for the Will’s non-registration; the appellant failed to prove the family relationship on which his claim partly rested; and the pleadings and Will differed as to the testator’s son.

The evidence also did not establish that the appellant had cared for the testator.

These deficiencies meant the appellant had not proved the Will, and the concurrent findings against his title claim disclosed no substantial question of law.

The Court declined to determine the validity of the 1992 Will because all the testator’s legal representatives were not before it.

As the tenant’s possession and tenancy were admitted, the Court upheld protection against eviction without due process.

It left intact the dismissal of the appellant’s declaration suits and the decree protecting the tenant from eviction without due process, but set aside the lower courts’ findings on the validity of the 20 January 1992 Will.