Unregistered Will leaving behind immediate legal heirs is invalid if suspicious circumstances remain undispelled.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for partition seeking a 2/3rd share in properties originally owned by his father, Chinnappa Gounder, who died intestate in 1982.

The Plaintiff claimed that his brother, Ponnusamy, lived with him from 2000 until his death in 2011 and executed an unregistered Will dated 10.02.2010 bequeathing his 1/3rd share to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants 1 to 3 (Ponnusamy’s widow and children) contested the Will as a fabrication, asserting the property was ancestral and that Ponnusamy died intestate.

The Trial Court (Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirupur) dismissed the claim regarding the Will and granted the Plaintiff only his original 1/3rd share.

1. Whether the Will dated 10.02.2010 executed by the testator C. Ponnusamy is true, valid, and proved in the manner known to law.

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties based on the said Will.

The proponent of a Will must dispel "suspicious circumstances" surrounding its execution under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The law requires that at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the execution of the Will, and the testimony must establish that the testator signed the document in a sound state of mind in the presence of witnesses.

Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC governed the procedure for this Appeal Suit.

The Court found the Will surrounded by several "suspicious circumstances" that the Plaintiff failed to dispel, including the unnatural exclusion of the testator’s wife and children from the inheritance.

There were significant discrepancies in the testator's age between the Will (70 years) and the Death Certificate (67 years) and the signatures on the Will were inconsistent across pages.

The attesting witness (PW2) revealed that the testator was residing in an old age home at the time of execution, casting doubt on the Plaintiff's claim of personal care, and could not identify the other witness.

The Plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit until 2020, despite having knowledge of a competing Release Deed in 2017, was seen as a failure to promptly assert rights under the alleged Will.

The High Court dismissed the Appeal Suit, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 10.12.2025, and ordered no costs.