Propounder Must Prove Will: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Ruling In Family Property Dispute

The case involved a suit filed by a woman seeking declaration of title and possession based on a registered will allegedly executed by her father-in-law, Mangal Prasad Soni, in 1993. Notably, the will excluded the testator's own son; the predecessor of the present appellants, and named his daughter-in-law as the sole beneficiary.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had disbelieved the will, citing multiple suspicious circumstances, including the non-examination of the scribe, lack of evidence that the will was read to the testator, and inconsistencies such as the testator signing in English instead of Hindi, his usual practice.

However, the High Court reversed these findings, placing the burden of proof on the appellants and ruling in favour of the respondent solely on the basis that the will was registered and attesting witnesses had been examined.

Criticising this approach, the Court held that the High Court had “completely misunderstood the law governing the proof of wills” and reiterated that “it is for the propounder/beneficiary to prove the will to the satisfaction of the Court.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to dispose of the appeal on its merits within six months.

The Appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.