The Supreme Court dismissed a long-running inheritance dispute after the only witness to the mother’s will admitted he knew nothing about it, making the will legally invalid. The Court ruled that the property must now devolve under natural Hindu succession, allowing the son to inherit his mother’s share.
On December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a decades-old property inheritance dispute after finding that the will relied upon by the claimant was not legally proved. The top court ruled that when the only attesting witness to a will admits during cross-examination that he does not know anything about the will or even about the affidavit filed in his name, such a will cannot be accepted as genuine in law.
The dispute dates back to 1989, when Smt. Kamala filed a civil suit against her own son, Mr. Rao, seeking declaration of title and possession over a family property. She also demanded ₹22,500 as past rent for the period from 1979 to December 1981 or, alternatively, compensation for use and occupation of the property, along with future rent and litigation expenses.
After the trial, the trial court partly allowed the suit and directed the son to hand over one portion out of four portions of the property to his mother. The court further ruled that from April 1, 1989, the son had no right over that portion.
The son did not challenge this judgment, and therefore it attained finality. However, the mother filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the trial court’s order. During the pendency of this appeal, Smt. Kamala passed away.
After her death, a third person approached the High Court claiming that he was the legal successor of the deceased mother on the basis of a will dated March 11, 1999. He sought permission to continue the appeal against the son, asserting rights under the alleged will. To prove the will, only one attesting witness was examined.
However, during cross-examination, the witness made statements that completely weakened the case. He stated:
“I have not given instruction for preparing the chief affidavit belongs to me. I cannot say who have instructions for preparing my chief affidavit. I do not know the contents of my chief affidavit…”
He further admitted,
“I do not know the contents of the will.”
Based on this admission, the High Court held that the will was not proved in accordance with law. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s findings and dismissed the civil appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had examined the evidence of three witnesses and correctly held that PW-5, Mr. Basha, was the only attesting witness examined before the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Since he was the sole attesting witness, his testimony was crucial to proving the will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The High Court had found that PW-5, in his cross-examination, clearly stated that he could not say who gave instructions for preparing his chief affidavit and that he did not know the contents of his chief affidavit. Therefore, the High Court concluded that his statement could not be relied upon as there was effectively no valid examination-in-chief.
The Supreme Court observed that apart from PW-5, neither the other attesting witness nor the scribe of the will was examined. As a result, the entire burden of proving the execution of the will rested solely on PW-5. Given the importance of his testimony, the Court said his evidence had to be examined with extreme care.
The Supreme Court recorded that PW-5 had not only admitted that the chief affidavit was not prepared under his instructions, but also stated in his cross-examination that he did not know the contents of the will. While the appellant’s counsel argued that the witness’s entire statement should not be discarded, the Court rejected the argument that the execution of the will stood proved through his cross-examination.
The Court held that the evidence of a witness must be read as a whole and not in parts, and when read as a whole, the testimony of PW-5 did not inspire confidence.
Explaining the legal position, the Supreme Court held that to prove the execution of a will, it is mandatory to examine at least one attesting witness.
However, when the sole attesting witness admits that his examination-in-chief was not prepared under his instructions and that he does not know its contents, the evidentiary value of his testimony is seriously damaged.
ALSO READ: Woman’s Gotra Changes When She Marries: Supreme Court On Widow’s Property Rights
The Court clarified that while it is not necessary for an attesting witness to know the contents of the will, the witness must clearly state in court that the affidavit was prepared under his own instructions so that his credibility as a true attestor can be assessed, as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Supreme Court made its position clear by stating:
“If there is slightest doubt about the credibility of the sole attesting witness, holding the will to be a genuine one would be extremely difficult for the Court.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded:
“In the above view of the matter we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the will dated March 11, 1999 ought to have been found as genuine and the appellant should have been allowed to prosecute the Appeal Suit before the High Court on merits. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the Civil Appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.”
The Supreme Court further clarified that it had not interfered with the trial court’s judgment, as the son had never appealed against it.
The Court stated that the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the third person had no right to be impleaded as a legal heir should not be taken as setting aside the trial court’s decree. It added that this would not affect the natural line of succession that opened after the death of the mother.
As a result, since the will was not proved, succession to the mother’s property would now be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court had already held that the mother was entitled to only one-fourth share in the property. Since the will failed, that one-fourth share would devolve by intestate succession.
Commenting on the judgment, Divi Dutta, Partner at Khaitan & Co, told ET Wealth Online:
“In this case, the mother’s will was held to be not proved, as the sole attesting witness denied knowledge of its execution. In view of this failure to comply with the statutory requirements of proof, the court was constrained to apply the rules of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, rather than giving effect to the testamentary disposition.”
He explained that where a Hindu female dies intestate, succession is governed by Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 15(1)(a) gives first preference to the sons and daughters. According to Dutta, where the son is the sole surviving heir under this provision, he would normally inherit the entire estate of the deceased Hindu female.
Dutta further clarified:
“In the instant case, it appears that the mother was only entitled to 1/4th share in the property and hence, upon failure of the will, the son being the sole heir succeeded to the mother’s entire 1/4th share in the property.”
He added:
“Where a will executed by a Hindu female is held to be not proved in accordance with law, the testamentary disposition fails and the estate of the deceased devolves by intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as if no will had been executed.”
ALSO READ: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Explaining the legal effect, Dutta stated:
“Once a will fails for want of proof, it is treated as non est in the eye of law and is ignored for all legal purposes. The estate of the deceased is then required to devolve by intestate succession, and succession opens in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the HSA as if no will has ever been executed.”
He concluded:
“The property consequently devolves upon the heirs falling within Section 15(1)(a) of the HSA in preference to all other categories of heirs specified under the Act.”
As things stand, the son retains his entitlement to the one-fourth share originally belonging to his late mother, while the alleged will stands rejected for failure of legal proof.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Hindu Succession Law
