Unauthenticated alterations in a Will are void and probate must be granted in its original state.

Late Kunhikrishna Kurup executed a Will on 27.07.1993 and deposited it with the District Registrar

Following his death, the second appellant (son) had the Will opened and registered in December 2006

The first respondent (daughter/plaintiff) filed a petition for probate, alleging that a correction was made on page 2, line 8, altering the word "മകൾ" (daughter—singular) to "മക്കൾ" (children—plural) to fraudulently convert an exclusive bequest into a joint one

Because the matter was contested, the District Court converted the petition into an Original Suit (O.S. No. 7/2015) under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act

Forensic evidence (PW3) and testimony from the Sub-Registrar (DW5) indicated that the alteration was visible and likely occurred after the Will was initially copied for registration

The District Court granted probate in favor of the daughter, ignoring the correction; the appellants (mother and two sons) appealed

Section 71 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which dictates that no obliteration or alteration in an unprivileged Will made after execution shall have effect unless the alteration is executed in the same manner as the Will (i.e., signed by the testator and witnesses in the margin or near the alteration)

Supreme Court's ruling in Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna [(2012) 1 SCC 510], which affirms that unattested alterations are void

Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi [(1953) 1 SCC 295], establishing that while a Probate Court does not determine title, it must determine if the document is the genuine last testament

Cooper v. Bockett [4 Moo. P.C. 419] and Surendra Krishna Mondal v. Rani Dassi [1920 SCC OnLine Cal 52] to hold that the burden of proving that an alteration was made prior to execution lies with the party propounding the altered Will

The Court observed that the alteration was visible to the naked eye and forensic reports confirmed the overwriting

Applying Section 71, the Court found the alteration void because it lacked the requisite signatures/attestation by the testator and witnesses

The Court emphasized the testimony of the Sub-Registrar (DW5), who confirmed the Will had no such correction when he first prepared the official copy (Ext. X2), suggesting the manipulation occurred during the unexplained delay between the Will's opening and its redeposit

On jurisdiction, the Court reasoned that converting a probate proceeding into a suit under Section 295 allows for a full inquiry into "suspicious circumstances."

It held that identifying and omitting unauthorized alterations is a core function of the Probate Court to ensure the "true intent" of the testator is realized, which is distinct from interpreting complex rights or titles

The Court held that the alteration from "daughter" to "children" was invalid under Section 71 of the Indian Succession Act as it was made post-execution without proper attestation

The Court directed that probate be granted to the daughter based on the original, unaltered text of the Will

The Court held that the Probate Court acted within its jurisdiction by scrutinizing the genuineness of the document and its subsequent tampering