Registration is not a prerequisite for Will validity if due execution and attestation are proved.

The plaintiffs (sons of Rulia Ram) filed a suit for declaration and injunction asserting ownership of suit land based on an unregistered Will dated 24.05.1995 executed by their father

Defendant No. 1 (another son) contested the suit, propounding a previous registered Will dated 31.05.1993 and challenging the 1995 Will as a forgery, citing the testator’s ill health and the proximity of execution to his death (9 days prior) as suspicious circumstances

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found the 1995 Will to be validly executed, leading to the present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) by the legal representatives of Defendant No. 1

During the appeal, the appellants moved an application (CMP No. 454 of 2011) to lead additional evidence via a handwriting expert

1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are a result of complete misreading or misinterpretation of evidence and against the settled position of law?

2. Whether the appellants can be permitted to lead additional evidence (handwriting expert report) at the stage of the second appeal?

The Court applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which restricts additional evidence in appellate courts unless the trial court refused admissible evidence, the evidence was unavailable despite due diligence, or the court requires it to pronounce judgment

Regarding the Will, it applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring at least one attesting witness to prove due execution

It relied on Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) regarding the removal of suspicious circumstances

it relied on Kashibai v. Parwatibai (1995) which holds that concurrent findings of fact on the execution of a Will cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court first rejected the application for additional evidence, noting that the appellants failed to explain why a handwriting expert's report was not obtained during the lengthy trial or first appeal, thus failing the "due diligence" test under Order 41 Rule 27

On merits, the Court analyzed the testimonies of the scribe (PW3), marginal witness (PW4), and the testator’s daughter (DW6), who supported the 1995 Will despite being disinherited by it—a factor the court deemed strong evidence of the Will's genuineness

The Court held that minor contradictions in testimonies regarding who brought the paper or the presence of specific family members do not constitute "suspicious circumstances" inherent to the transaction

It further clarified that using witnesses from a different village or the beneficiary's presence during execution does not invalidate a Will

Finally, the Court emphasized that as per Section 100 CPC, it cannot re-appreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless there is absolute perversity, which was not found here

The application for additional evidence was dismissed as the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 were not met

The Court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, finding no misreading of evidence or perversity in the lower courts' concurrent findings