Leela & Ors. Vs. Muruganantham & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023]

The Supreme Court of India, in Leela & Ors. vs. Muruganantham & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023], delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, concerning the validity and genuineness of a disputed unregistered Will dated April 6, 1990.

Facts and Background
The case arose from a family dispute over properties originally owned by Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, who had two wives: his first wife Rajammal (with whom he had three sons and a daughter) and his second wife Leela (with whom he had two sons, considered illegitimate). In 1989, Balasubramaniya executed a partition deed dividing his properties into four schedules. After his death in 1991, the children from the first marriage sought partition of the properties retained by him (First Schedule). Leela and her sons contested this claim, producing the 1990 Will that purportedly bequeathed the First Schedule properties to them.

Lower Courts’ Findings
Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the Will to be shrouded in suspicious circumstances and ruled against its validity. The courts noted several discrepancies:

The Will stated the testator was of sound mind and acted without instigation, yet medical records showed he suffered from heart disease and was treated by multiple doctors.

The Will was executed far from the testator’s residence despite his poor health.

The stamp papers used for the Will were purchased in Leela’s name, a primary beneficiary who denied involvement in the Will’s preparation.

One attesting witness, Leela’s brother, claimed the Will was read aloud to the testator by a notary, but this was not reflected in the Will itself.

Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that mere registration of a Will does not confer validity. The Court reiterated that execution of a Will must comply with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and proof must satisfy Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. At least one attesting witness must testify to the Will’s execution.

The Court held that the propounders failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution. The evidence did not satisfactorily prove that the testator signed the Will voluntarily, was of sound mind, or understood the nature and effect of the Will.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Will was invalid due to lack of proper execution and suspicious circumstances. The judgment underscores that:

Mere registration of a Will does not validate it.

Strict compliance with statutory provisions on execution and proof of a Will is mandatory.

Suspicious circumstances and inadequate evidence justify rejection of a Will.

This ruling reinforces the principle that the burden lies on the propounder to prove the genuineness and validity of a Will beyond reasonable doubt.