Supreme Court Clarifies Distinction Between “Valid Execution” and “Genuineness” of a Will

Add a comment

The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated January 3, 2025, emphasized that even if a will is proven to have been executed as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it does not automatically establish its genuineness. The Court stated that it is the “irrecusable duty” of the Court to call upon the propounder to remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding the will when raised by an objector.

Background

The case involved a dispute over the will of the deceased Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho. The plaintiff, Myra Philomena Coalho, sought Letters of Administration (LOA) with the will annexed. While the Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the will was executed in accordance with the law, it dismissed the suit on grounds of suspicious circumstances. The Division Bench reversed this, holding the will to be genuine and valid.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

  1. Distinction Between Valid Execution and Genuineness:
    The Court clarified that proving the valid execution of a will does not lead to an automatic presumption of its genuineness. A will can be validly executed yet still be unworthy of reliance if shrouded in suspicious circumstances.
  2. Duty to Address Suspicious Circumstances:
    The Court highlighted that when suspicious circumstances are raised, it is incumbent upon the propounder to remove them to the satisfaction of the Court. The failure to do so allows the Court to decline reliance on the will despite its valid execution.
  3. Evaluation of the High Court’s Approach:
    The Supreme Court criticized the Division Bench for failing to consider whether the will was shrouded in suspicious circumstances. It noted that the Single-Judge Bench had not made a specific finding regarding the genuineness of the will, which the Division Bench wrongly presumed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s findings and upheld the approach of the Single-Judge Bench. However, it granted the parties liberty to argue the matter on merits before the Division Bench.

Citation

Case Name: Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho, Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009

Leave a comment