Probate Denied: Propounder’s Failure to Explain Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Will Executed Day Before Death

The appellant (Asha Devi) sought probate for an unregistered Will dated 09.09.2009, allegedly executed by her mother-in-law, Rameshwari Devi.

The testatrix, aged 94 and suffering from prolonged illness since 2008, died on 10.09.2009—one day after the Will's execution.

The Trial Court (3rd ADJ, Bhojpur) dismissed the petition, citing suspicious circumstances: the proximity of death to execution, the testatrix's advanced age/illness, lack of medical evidence regarding mental capacity, and the exclusion of natural heirs (descendants of the second wife).

The appellant challenged this dismissal in the High Court.

1. Whether the Will dated 09.09.2009 is a genuine, valid, and duly executed testamentary document.

2. Whether the propounder (appellant) successfully removed the "suspicious circumstances" surrounding the execution of the Will.

3. Whether the Probate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining title disputes rather than execution.

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that a Will must be signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses.

Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 68 of the Evidence Act) regarding the mode of proving a Will.

H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), establishing that if a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder carries a heavy burden to satisfy the "judicial conscience" of the Court.

11-point test from Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023 9 SCC 734) regarding the removal of legitimate suspicions like shaky signatures or unnatural dispositions.

The Court noted that while the appellant produced attesting witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2), their testimony failed to dispel "real and germane" suspicions.

The testatrix’s extreme age (94) and death within 24 hours of the alleged execution necessitated rigorous proof of a "sound disposing state of mind," yet no medical evidence was provided.

The Court observed that the active role of the sole beneficiary (the appellant) and the total exclusion of other natural heirs without explanation further intensified the doubt.

It rejected the argument that the burden shifted to the objectors, stating that in probate law, the propounder must stand on their own evidence to remove initial suspicions before forgery needs to be proven by the defense.

The Court found the Trial Court’s scrutiny was limited to the "genuineness of execution" and did not improperly stray into "title disputes".

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment dated 09.12.2019 and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Will was not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.