the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of Sardari Lal (legal representative of the original plaintiff) and restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, declaring a registered Will dated 06.11.1974 executed by Chhajju Ram invalid.
Background
Chhajju Ram (illiterate agriculturist) died intestate on 05.02.1992 leaving behind his widow Bhambo Devi (original plaintiff) as sole legal heir. Defendants (nephews) claimed title based on the 1974 Will and got mutation sanctioned. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership, injunction, and alternative possession, alleging the Will was forged/fraudulent.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justice Manoj Misra (2026 INSC 669) analysed the evidence in depth and held:
- Suspicious Circumstances Not Explained:
- Unjustified disinheritance of wife (sole heir) who cared for testator throughout.
- Relationship of beneficiaries (nephew status) not established.
- Will executed in 1974 with testator surviving till 1992 – no compelling reason or motive shown.
- Attesting witnesses not from testator’s village; no local witness chosen.
- Major unexplained cuttings/alterations on registration endorsement (name changed from Laxmi Kant Bassi to Chhajju Ram; age altered) – no initials by Sub-Registrar.
- Non-examination of second attesting witness (alive) and scribe.
- Proof of Will: Burden lies heavily on propounder when suspicious circumstances exist. Mere registration and one attesting witness insufficient to dispel doubts.
- Possession: Plaintiff proved possession; defendants failed to show delivery.
- High Court Error: Second Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating evidence and substituting findings of fact.
Result: Civil Appeal allowed. Suit decreed; Will discarded. Plaintiff’s L.R. declared owner.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial Conscience Test: Wills shrouded in suspicion require full explanation by propounder.
- Disinheritance: Needs cogent reasons, especially excluding natural heirs like spouse.
- Alterations in Documents: Unexplained changes raise serious doubt.
- Concurrent Findings: Generally not interfered in Second Appeal unless perverse.
- Section 63 Indian Succession Act: Strict compliance with attestation and execution mandatory.
Case Details
Case Name: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016 (2026 INSC 669) – Reportable
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 