Registered Will prevails over suspicious Will on plain paper with contradictory attesting witness testimony.

The Plaintiff (Sonsai) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding property originally owned by one Butul.

Plaintiff claimed Butul, being childless and cared for by the Plaintiff, executed a registered Will in his favor on 31.01.1993.

Defendant No. 1 (step-brother of Butul) contested the suit, claiming Butul lived with him and had executed a subsequent Will on plain paper in his favor, purportedly canceling the previous registered Will.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, finding the Defendant’s Will suspicious due to contradictions in witness testimony and its informal nature.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the Defendants' appeal, leading to this Second Appeal.

1. Whether the registered Will (Ext. P-03) in favor of the Plaintiff was duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

2. Whether the subsequent Will on plain paper produced by the Defendant was genuine or surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

3. Whether the Second Appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the execution and attestation of Wills.

It relied on the principles reiterated in Gopal Krishan and Ors. v. Daulat Ram and Ors. (2025 (2) SCC 804) and Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, which establish that a Will must be attested by two witnesses, at least one of whom must be examined to prove its execution, and the propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions.

Furthermore, the Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a Second Appeal unless they are perverse or contrary to law, as established in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff successfully proved the registered Will (Ext. P-03) through the testimony of attesting witness PW-2, Madwari Singh, who confirmed Butul’s sound mind and the formal registration process at Ambikapur.

Conversely, the Defendant’s Will was found unreliable because it was written on plain paper and contained no mention of canceling the prior registered Will.

Crucially, the Defendant’s attesting witness (DW-3) gave contradictory testimony, stating that one "Budhiya" affixed a thumb impression instead of the testator "Butul".

The High Court determined that the propounder of the second Will failed to remove "real, germane and valid" suspicions.

Since both lower courts arrived at identical factual conclusions based on the evidence, and the Appellants failed to demonstrate perversity or a misapplication of law, no "substantial question of law" existed to warrant interference under Section 100 CPC.

It held that the Plaintiff had proved the due execution of the registered Will, while the Defendant failed to establish the validity of the subsequent informal Will.

The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the Wills did not involve any substantial question of law, and thus the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere was barred.