The Bombay High Court has ruled that suspicious Wills won’t pass judicial scrutiny unless courts examine such doubts to their logical conclusion, placing the burden on beneficiaries to fully dispel suspicion before probate or succession relief is granted.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that courts exercising testamentary jurisdiction must go beyond technical proof of a Will when surrounding circumstances raise doubt about its genuineness. Even where execution and attestation are proved, a Will cannot be acted upon unless all suspicious circumstances are satisfactorily explained by the person relying on it.
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna delivered the ruling while deciding an appeal in a protracted family dispute involving competing claims over parental estates. The matter reached the High Court after the Supreme Court set aside an earlier appellate decision and ordered a fresh examination of the alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
The Bench clarified that while compliance with the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act is essential, testamentary courts are not confined to verifying signatures and attestation alone. Where facts suggest unusual or questionable features, courts are duty-bound to probe them fully.
The judges stressed that the burden rests entirely on the propounder of the Will to remove any legitimate doubts and satisfy the judicial conscience that the document truly reflects the testator’s free and informed intention.
The dispute arose when a daughter sought Letters of Administration based on her mother’s Will, which divided the estate equally among three children while excluding two sons.
The legal heirs of one excluded son opposed the claim, resulting in the testamentary proceedings being converted into a full-fledged suit. Although the trial court found that the Will had been properly executed and that the testator was mentally competent, it declined to grant probate due to multiple unresolved suspicious features.
While this decision was briefly overturned on appeal, the Supreme Court intervened and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh.
High Court’s Observation
Vague Reference to Property
One of the key concerns identified by the Court was the absence of specific details regarding the property bequeathed. The Will used a broad expression referring to all movable and immovable assets, despite being prepared by a legal professional.
This assumed importance because the testator herself held only a limited interest in the property under her late husband’s Will. The Court held that such lack of clarity created uncertainty regarding the testator’s intention and could not be rectified through external evidence.
Active Involvement of the Beneficiary
The Court also examined the role played by the appellant in the execution of the Will. Evidence showed that she facilitated contact with the advocate, remained present throughout the execution process, and that the attesting witness had no independent familiarity with the testator.
Although participation by a beneficiary is not automatically suspicious, the Court ruled that in the given factual matrix, the extent of the appellant’s involvement warranted a credible explanation, which was absent.
Failure to Step Into the Witness Box
Another crucial factor was the appellant’s decision not to testify. The Court noted that she was uniquely positioned to explain the surrounding circumstances and that her failure to depose justified drawing an adverse inference, particularly when the medical explanation offered was unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
Exclusion of Natural Heirs
The exclusion of two sons, without any explanation either in the Will or through oral evidence, further strengthened the Court’s doubts. While disinheritance alone does not invalidate a Will, the Bench held that it cannot be ignored when viewed alongside other suspicious elements.
In reaffirming the governing principles of probate law, the Court referred to several landmark decisions, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar, Kavita Kanwar, and Shivakumar, which consistently hold that suspicious circumstances must be completely dispelled before a Will can be accepted.
The Court also endorsed the principle of judicial caution articulated in earlier Privy Council rulings, underscoring the need for scepticism when a Will departs from natural lines of succession without explanation.
After reconsidering the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s directions, the Bombay High Court concluded that the appellant had failed to remove the cloud of suspicion surrounding the Will.
The cumulative effect of unclear property description, the beneficiary’s dominant role, unexplained disinheritance, and the absence of personal testimony proved fatal to the claim.
The appeal was dismissed, and the refusal to grant Letters of Administration with the Will annexed was confirmed.
Appearances:
Appellant: Karl Tamboly, Senior Advocate
Respondents: Nigel Quraishy, Senior Advocate
Case Title:
Myra Philomena Collaco v. Lilian Coelho & Ors.
APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2003
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Will