Supreme Court: Registered Will Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Burden Of Proof On Party Disputing Its Validity

The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be Defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the Defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5921 of 2015 and 5922 of 2015 +

Decided On: 21.07.2025

Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Ors. Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by L.Rs

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 879,MANU/SC/0956/2025.

Print Page

When Subsequent unregistered will prevail over registered will?

The learned Single Judge then enumerated the following reasons for coming to the conclusion that the execution of Will dated 10.2.1992 was suspicious and the testator had not acted of his own free will:

(8) While the first Will was registered, the executant did not bother to get the second Will registered. {Para 13}

The absence of a categorical recital in Will dated 10.2.1992 that the earlier Will was cancelled is also not relevant because once the execution of the second Will is held as duly proved, the earlier Will automatically becomes redundant because the second Will represents the last wish of the testator.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7587-7588 of 2004

Decided On: 13.03.2012

 Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs.  Vs.  Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of registered will?

There is no doubt that 'if a will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the will Was registered would not be of much value. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered wills have not been acted upon (see' for example, Vellasaway Sarvai v. L. Sivaraman Servai, (1) Surendra Nath Lahiri v. Jnanendra Nath Lahiri ( 2 )and Girji Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh)(3). Therefore, the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the will after knowing that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting.

Supreme Court of India

Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And ... on 22 August, 1961

Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 567, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 195

BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

Print Page