Unexplained suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will defeat its probate.

Motilal Jayswal purchased the disputed property, Survey No. 3138/Revenue Survey No. 1686, measuring approximately 4,856.30 sq. metres, by a registered sale deed in 1936.

After his death on 10 October 1985, the appellants claimed that the property was ancestral/HUF property and that Motilal’s heirs had equal undivided shares.

The respondents relied on an alleged handwritten Will dated 17 April 1976, under which the property was bequeathed exclusively to Sunilkumar, Motilal’s grandson.

In revenue proceedings initiated in 1991–92, the respondents sought mutation of Sunilkumar’s name on the basis of the Will.

Despite directions from the revenue authorities, the original Will was not produced.

The revenue authorities rejected the mutation claim, with the Collector ultimately confirming the rejection on 15 January 1998.

The appellants instituted a suit for declaration, partition and injunction.

The respondents thereafter filed Probate Application No. 33 of 1997 seeking probate or letters of administration in respect of the Will.

The trial court dismissed the suit but allowed the probate application by a common judgment dated 15 March 2000, leading to the two appeals.

1. Whether the appellants proved that the disputed property was undivided HUF/ancestral property in which they possessed an undivided share?

2. Whether the respondents proved that the Will dated 17 April 1976 was the valid last Will of Motilal Jayswal bequeathing the disputed property to Sunilkumar, or whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances?

3. Whether the probate application was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

4. What final relief and order should be granted?

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, requiring execution and attestation of an unprivileged Will, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring examination of at least one attesting witness to prove a document required by law to be attested.

The burden lies on the propounder to prove due execution, testamentary capacity and the testator’s understanding of the Will; where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must satisfactorily explain them and satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court.

The Court relied on Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass, 2026 INSC 669, Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, and Shivakumar v. Sharanbasappa for this principle.

Suspicious circumstances may include an unnatural disposition, exclusion of natural heirs, doubtful execution, the beneficiary’s active involvement, inconsistencies in the attesting evidence, and failure to establish that the testator understood the Will’s contents.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act prescribes three years for an application where no other period is provided, but delay in seeking probate is not an absolute bar; unexplained delay constitutes a suspicious circumstance.

Since the property was treated as Motilal’s separate property and the Will failed, succession was governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which the property devolved upon the Class I heirs in equal shares.

The Court found several cumulative suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.

Although the Will was dated 17 April 1976, it incorrectly stated that Motilal’s wife, Chandanben, had already died, whereas she died only on 5 May 1977.

The explanation that the elderly scribe had hearing difficulties was introduced belatedly and was unsupported by convincing evidence.

The attesting witness gave inconsistent evidence in the suit and probate proceedings, including uncertainty as to whether the Will had been read over to Motilal before signature.

His evidence also indicated that Motilal had not read the fair copy before signing it.

The Will was written by a scribe although Motilal was literate, bore the testator’s signature only on the final page, and was executed in circumstances that were not satisfactorily explained.

The beneficiary, who was major when the probate application was filed, did not enter the witness box and failed to explain the Will’s delayed emergence or its non-production before the revenue authorities despite repeated directions.

The bequest exclusively in favour of one grandson, excluding Motilal’s other children and grandchildren, further required explanation which was not provided.

The Court held that the probate application was not absolutely barred by limitation because the right to seek probate is continuing; however, the unexplained delay from the testator’s death in 1985 until the emergence of the Will in the revenue proceedings in 1991–92, and the filing of probate proceedings thereafter, materially strengthened the suspicion surrounding the document.

Once the Will was rejected, the property devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act upon Motilal’s Class I heirs.

Although the appellants had pleaded an ancestral-property case and had not joined Motilal’s daughters, the Court held that non-joinder did not defeat the partition claim; their shares could be recognised and adjusted while preparing the preliminary decree.

The High Court reversed the dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 130 of 1996 and held that Motilal Jayswal’s Class I heirs possessed equal undivided shares in the disputed property, directing that partition be effected accordingly.

The probate application was dismissed because the propounder failed to prove the Will and dispel the serious suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

The Registry was directed to draw the preliminary decree and transmit it to the trial court for execution.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and any interim relief was discontinued.