Exclusion of natural heirs alone does not invalidate a duly proved Will.

Late Nathu Singh, a Hindu, died on 20 January 2008, leaving six sons and two daughters. His son, Prem Chand, filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of Nathu Singh’s registered Will dated 13 December 2005, registered on 28 December 2005. The Will bequeathed the testator’s movable and immovable properties, including land at Karkardooma, substantially in favour of Prem Chand while excluding the other legal heirs.

Kailash Chand, Jagdish Prasad, Pyare Lal and Darshana contested the petition, alleging improper signing of the probate petition, a prior oral partition of the properties, lack of testamentary capacity due to age, cataract and cancer, suspicious exclusion of the other heirs, and fabrication or undue influence by Prem Chand.

Prem Chand examined himself, Mahender Kumar—one of the attesting witnesses—and D.K. Sharma, the drafting advocate and second attesting witness. An official from the Sub-Registrar’s office proved the registration of the Will.

The Additional District Judge accepted the Will as duly executed and attested, rejected the plea of prior partition, and granted probate/Letters of Administration in favour of Prem Chand.

Kailash Chand and Jagdish Prasad challenged that decision under Section 96 CPC before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the execution and attestation of the Will dated 13 December 2005 were duly proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

2. Whether Nathu Singh was in a sound and disposing state of mind when he executed the Will?

3. Whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances warranting its rejection, including the beneficiary’s alleged participation, exclusion of other heirs, inclusion of acquired land and alleged inconsistent instructions?

4. Whether the appellants established that the testator’s properties had already been orally partitioned during his lifetime?

5. Whether the impugned judgment suffered from illegality, perversity, material irregularity or misappreciation of evidence warranting appellate interference?

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires an unprivileged Will to bear the testator’s signature or mark and to be attested by at least two witnesses, each of whom must see the testator sign or receive his personal acknowledgment and sign in the testator’s presence.

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires proof of an attested document through at least one attesting witness where such proof is legally necessary; in the present case, both attesting witnesses were examined.

A propounder must dispel genuine and legitimate suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will, but mere exclusion of natural heirs or an apparently unequal disposition is not, by itself, suspicious: P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, and Mahesh Kumar v. Vinod Kumar.

Participation of a beneficiary in preparation or registration is only one circumstance and does not establish undue influence absent evidence of coercion, manipulation or lack of free volition: Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta.

Mere old age, illness or impaired eyesight does not negate testamentary capacity unless it affected the testator’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of the disposition: Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty.

Probate proceedings determine the genuineness and due execution of the Will, not title or ownership disputes concerning the properties bequeathed.

Although an oral family arrangement or partition is legally permissible, it must be established through cogent evidence of a definite, concluded arrangement acted upon by the parties: Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The Court held that the Will was proved through the consistent testimony of Prem Chand, Mahender Kumar and the drafting advocate, D.K. Sharma. The evidence showed that Nathu Singh personally instructed the advocate, understood the contents after they were read over, voluntarily signed the Will, and thereafter appeared before the Sub-Registrar. The attesting witnesses’ evidence remained substantially unshaken, and the official registration record corroborated the execution.

The challenge to testamentary capacity failed because the appellants produced no medical record or treating doctor to show that cancer or cataract impaired Nathu Singh’s mental faculties on 13 December 2005. Their own evidence indicated that he continued to conduct his business until shortly before his death, which was inconsistent with alleged incapacity.

The alleged suspicious circumstances were also insufficient. Prem Chand’s presence and assistance in registration did not establish undue influence; the evidence indicated that the initiative originated with the testator. Exclusion of the other heirs was legally permissible and was supported by evidence that Prem Chand cared for the testator and that the testator had reasons for not benefiting the other children.

The inclusion of the Karkardooma land, even if acquired, did not affect the Will’s validity because probate does not adjudicate title, and the Will contained a general bequest of the testator’s assets.

Registration was not treated as conclusive but operated as corroborative evidence alongside proof by the attesting witnesses.

The plea of prior oral partition was rejected because the appellants produced no deed, memorandum, revenue record or independent contemporaneous evidence. Their witnesses could not specify the date, terms or manner of partition, and separate occupation of portions of property did not establish a concluded partition.

The appellate court consequently found no perversity, illegality or material misappreciation of evidence in the ADJ’s decision.

Finding no ground for appellate interference, the Court affirmed the ADJ’s judgment dated 15 November 2010 granting probate and Letters of Administration in favour of Prem Chand, dismissed the appeal, and disposed of the pending application(s).