Probate Court Cannot Adjudicate the Veracity of Statements in a Will if Due Execution is Proven

The Testator, Anil Kumar Sen, executed a registered Will on February 22, 2012, before passing away on December 23, 2016.

The Plaintiff (elder son/Executor) sought probate, supported by consent affidavits from the Testator’s wife and daughter.

The Defendant (younger son) filed a caveat and an affidavit in support, alleging that the Will was "toxic," "full of untruths," and executed under undue influence or unsound mind.

The Defendant further claimed specific properties mentioned in the Will were intended as wedding gifts for him.

While the Plaintiff produced three witnesses, the Defendant failed to cross-examine the third witness or present a substantive rebuttal after the initial stages.

1. Whether the Will dated February 22, 2012, was executed by the Testator in accordance with the law?

2. Whether the Testator was in a fit state of mind at the time of execution?

3. Whether the Testator executed the Will without any undue influence, coercion, or duress?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a grant of probate?

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates the specific formalities for the execution of unprivileged Wills, including signature by the testator and attestation by at least two witnesses.

The jurisdiction of a Probate Court is limited to determining the "due execution" and validity of the Will; it does not have the authority to adjudicate upon the veracity of statements made within the Will or the title of the properties mentioned therein.

The Court evaluated the oral testimony of PW-1 (attesting witness) and PW-2 (the Testator's daughter), both of whom consistently testified that the Testator was physically fit, mentally alert, and attending office regularly at the time of execution.

PW-1 identified the signatures of both the Testator and himself, satisfying the requirements of Section 63.

Regarding the Defendant’s allegations of "untruthful" content and property disputes, the Court held that such matters fall outside the limited jurisdiction of a probate proceeding.

Since the Defendant failed to complete the cross-examination of PW-3 or provide evidence of mental incapacity or coercion, the Court found the Plaintiff had successfully discharged the burden of proving the Will’s authenticity and the Testator’s testamentary capacity.

The Court ordered the grant of probate to the Plaintiff and directed that the inventory and accounts be filed within the statutory period.