MP High Court: Unproved Will Cannot Defeat Natural Succession Rights In Ancestral Property

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a person claiming exclusive ownership over ancestral property on the basis of a Will must strictly prove its execution in accordance with law, holding that an unproved Will cannot override the rights flowing through natural succession.

Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, while dismissing a first appeal filed by defendants in a long-standing property dispute, upheld the trial court's decree declaring a 1998 sale deed void and affirming the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed agricultural land.

The appeal arose from a judgment passed by a trial court in Ratlam in 2008. The dispute centred around agricultural land bearing Survey No.160 situated at village Badawda in Ratlam district. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to their grandfather Kashiram and that following a family arrangement and subsequent inheritance, the land had come into their possession. They alleged that one of the family members, Bagdiram, attempted to assert exclusive ownership and later executed a sale deed in favour of Rajendra Kumar in 1998 despite having no exclusive title over the land.

The defendants, on the other hand, argued that Kashiram had executed a registered Will in 1983 bequeathing the entire property to Bagdiram. On that basis, they contended that Bagdiram became the sole owner and was legally entitled to transfer the land.

Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Dilip Kumar Chaudhari argued that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the alleged family partition and that the suit property itself was not properly identifiable. It was further contended that the trial court had wrongly appreciated the evidence relating to the Will and the subsequent transactions.

Advocate Sameer Anant Athawale, appearing for the respondents, supported the findings of the trial court and submitted that the defendants' entire claim rested on a Will that was never legally proved. He argued that once the Will failed, the property necessarily devolved upon the legal heirs through natural succession.

The High Court first rejected the challenge regarding identification of the land. It noted that the plaint contained a detailed description of the property, including the well, house, passage and surrounding landmarks. Significantly, the defendants themselves had admitted several of these features in their written statement. The Court observed that the identity of the property had never been disputed before the trial court and therefore could not be questioned for the first time in appeal.

On the issue of possession, the Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's findings. It noted that documentary evidence, including electricity bills, supported the plaintiffs' possession, while the testimony of defence witnesses contained inconsistencies regarding the condition and occupation of structures standing on the land.

The Court's most significant finding concerned the alleged Will. Referring to settled principles governing proof of testamentary documents, Justice Dwivedi observed that a Will diverts the ordinary and natural line of succession and therefore carries a heavy burden of proof.

Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, the Court reiterated that, "The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder."

The High Court found that the defendants had failed to examine even a single attesting witness. The original Will was also not produced before the court, and no explanation was offered for its absence. In these circumstances, the Court held that the alleged Will remained unproved.

Justice Dwivedi observed that once the Will failed, the defendants' claim of exclusive ownership also collapsed. Consequently, Bagdiram could not have conveyed exclusive title to Rajendra Kumar through the 1998 sale deed. The Court held that title could not legally pass through a transaction executed by a person who had failed to establish exclusive ownership over the property.

Finding no perversity in the trial court's conclusions, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, bringing an end to an 18-year-old appellate dispute over ancestral property rights.

Case Title: Rajendra Kumar & Anors. And Others v. Dindayal Khatik and Others

Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi