Always for propounder or beneficiary to prove Will to court's satisfaction: SC

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the onus to prove a will lies squarely on its propounder or beneficiary. Setting aside a High Court verdict that erroneously shifted this burden onto the defendants, the apex court observed that the High Court had "completely misunderstood" the law governing the proof of wills.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that the High Court’s decision failed to engage with the merits of the case and was based solely on a misapplication of the legal principle regarding the burden of proof. The Court noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, as courts of fact, had provided cogent reasons to disbelieve the will in question.

“The High Court, while answering the substantial question of law, has completely misdirected itself… Nothing has been stated on merits in the impugned judgment, except by wrongly fixing the onus on the appellants,” the bench observed.

The case arose from a civil suit filed by Mukta Soni, who sought a declaration of title and possession over a property based on a registered will dated January 25, 1993, allegedly executed by her father-in-law, Mangal Prasad Soni, in her favour. The will excluded the predecessor of the appellants, Mukta’s brother-in-law, despite him being the son of the testator.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had both disbelieved the will, citing several suspicious circumstances. These included the failure to examine the scribe of the will, lack of proof that the contents were read over to the testator, and an attesting witness’s unfamiliarity with key facts such as the drafting of the will and the testator’s medical condition at the time. Additional doubts arose from the fact that the testator, who usually signed documents in Hindi, had signed the will in English, and that Mukta resided far from the testator’s home.

Despite these findings, the High Court reversed the concurrent judgments, holding that since the will was registered and the attesting witnesses had been examined, the plaintiff was entitled to relief in the absence of contrary evidence.

Disagreeing, the Supreme Court emphasized that many of the suspicious circumstances remained unexplained and should have been adequately addressed by the propounder of the will. “We do not need to say anything on the impugned judgment,” the Court remarked while setting it aside.

The matter has now been remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits. The bench also urged the High Court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the appeal within six months.

Case Title: Ramkali Soni & Ors v. Mukta Soni