The Supreme Court ruled that equity cannot override a testator’s clear intent, upholding a registered will that excluded one daughter. The Court reaffirmed that a validly proved will must prevail over claims of fairness.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reaffirming the primacy of testamentary freedom, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, upholding the validity of a will that excluded one of the testator’s nine children.
The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the wish of the testator assumes pre-eminence and cannot be frustrated by considerations of equity.
The case arose from a long-standing dispute over the estate of N.S. Sreedharan, who executed a registered will on March 26, 1988, bequeathing his properties to eight of his nine children, excluding one daughter who had married outside the community.
While the Trial Court and the High Court had earlier declared the will invalid due to alleged non-compliance with statutory attestation requirements, the Supreme Court reversed these findings, holding that the will was proved in accordance with law.
Background of the Case
- The testator’s will (Exhibit B2) was executed in 1988 and registered the following day.
- In 1990, the beneficiaries of the will filed a suit for an injunction against the excluded daughter, relying on the will. The suit went uncontested, resulting in an ex parte decree.
- More than two decades later, in 2011, the excluded daughter filed a partition suit, claiming her share in her father’s properties.
- The defendants relied on the will to oppose the claim.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the sole surviving attesting witness had failed to prove attestation by the second witness as required under the law. The High Court affirmed this view.
Legal Issues
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the will was duly proved in terms of:
- Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and
- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellants (Defendants)
- The appellants argued that the testimony of the attesting witness (DW-2), read as a whole, clearly proved:
- Execution of the will by the testator
- Attestation by the witness himself
- Presence and attestation of the other witness
- They contended that the lower courts misread the evidence by isolating parts of the testimony.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- The respondent argued that the will was not validly proved as the witness’s testimony was contradictory.
- Reliance was placed on precedents such as Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan and Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, to assert strict compliance with attestation requirements.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the deposition of DW-2, noting that:
- Although the examination-in-chief did not expressly state that the second witness signed the will, this fact emerged clearly during cross-examination.
- The Court rejected the High Court’s view that answers to leading questions in cross-examination lack probative value, observing: “Leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value.”
On the alleged discrepancy regarding the dates of execution and registration, the Court held that minor inconsistencies after a gap of 24 years are natural, citing H.H. Maharaja Bhanu Prakash Singh v. Tika Yogendra Chandra.
“It would be puerile to think that the witness would have remembered the visits made to the testator’s house, even for execution of a will, with mathematical precision.”
The Court emphasized that the testator was of sound and disposing mind, and the sole suspicion raised was the exclusion of one daughter. On this point, the Court made a strong observation:
“We cannot put the testator in our shoes, and we should step into his.”
Rejecting the plea of equity, the Court added:
“We are not on equity, and the wish of the testator assumes pre-eminence. The last will and testament of the testator cannot be digressed from or frustrated.”
Final Decision
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
- The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside.
- The will was held to be validly proved.
- The partition suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and she was held to have no partible claim in the properties.
Case Title:
K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors.
SLP (C) Nos. 11057-11058 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
