Holding

Non-mention of the testator’s wife and the absence of reasons for her disinheritance are suspicious circumstances that vitiate the free disposing mind, rendering the Will invalid.

Summary

Maya Singh died leaving a registered Will dated 16 May 1991 that bequeathed his 67-kanal land to his nephew, Gurdial Singh, while omitting any reference to his wife, Jagir Kaur, and providing no reason for her disinheritance. The nephew sued to enforce the Will, and the wife filed a separate suit claiming she was the lawful wife and that the adopted son claim was false. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the Will's validity, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed them, holding that the omission of the wife and lack of explanation were suspicious circumstances indicating the testator’s free disposing mind was compromised. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the legal standards for proving a Will under the Succession Act, 1925 and Evidence Act, 1872, and the doctrine of suspicious circumstances, concluding that the omission, when viewed with the surrounding facts, raised a serious doubt about undue influence by the nephew. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, finding the Will vitiated, and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

The omission of the testator's wife and the failure to explain her disinheritance constitute suspicious circumstances that vitiate the free disposing mind of the testator.
Whether the Will dated 16 May 1991 was duly proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts.

Legislation cited

Evidence Act, 1872s. 68
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 63

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the courts below and holding the Will was vitiated due to existence of suspicious circumstances, non-mention of the existence of wife and failure to give reasons for Will. Headnotes† Will – Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a Will – Ascertainment – Suit by the appellant-nephew of the testator of the Will that his deceased uncle bequeathed certain land to him and 1st respondent is not testator’s

Subjects

WillSuspicious circumstancesNon-mention of wife in WillDisinheritanceProof of WillUndue influenceFree disposing mindSuccession ActEvidence ActNatural heir deprivation

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 257 : 2025 INSC 866

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR
v.
Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3509-3510 of 2010)
17 July 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the High Court was justified in reversing
the concurrent findings of the courts below and holding the
Will was vitiated due to existence of suspicious circumstances,
non-mention of the existence of wife and failure to give reasons
for her disinheritance in the Will.

Headnotes†
Will – Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a
Will – Ascertainment – Suit by the appellant-nephew of the
testator of the Will that his deceased uncle bequeathed certain
land to him and 1st respondent is not testator’s lawfully wedded
wife, and 2nd respondent was not their adopted son – Suit by
the respondents seeking declaration that 1st respondent is
testator’s lawfully wedded wife, and 2nd respondent is their
adopted son – Trial court held that the 1st respondent was the
lawfully wedded wife of the testator but 2nd respondent was
not their adopted son; and declared that the Will propounded
by the testator was genuine and by virtue of the Will, the
appellant was the lawful owner of the suit land – Upheld by
the appellate court – In appeal, the High Court held that the 1st
respondent was entitled to the possession of the land since
the suspicious circumstance, non-mention of the wife of the
testator and the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will
exposed absence of ‘free disposing mind’ of the testator –
Correctness:
Held: Deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount
to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind

* Author
258 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of
succession – However, prudence requires reason for denying the
benefit of inheritance to natural heirs – Suspicious circumstance,
non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance
in the Will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of
all attending circumstances of the case – It cannot be said testator
had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with 1st respondent
or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him
to erase her very existence in the Will – Such erasure of marital
status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator
himself – Cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances
including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of
his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was
executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free
will’ of the testator – Non-mention of 1st respondent or the reasons
for her disinheritance in the Will, shows that the free disposition of
the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant –
No evidence to show whether the quantum of money said to be
settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would
satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard
to her complete expungement in the Will – Thus, the impugned
judgment upheld. [Paras 16, 18-22]

Case Law Cited
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant & Ors. [1993] 3 SCR 1018 : (1993) 3 SCC
364; Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan [2014] 7 SCR
697 : (2014) 15 SCC 570 – relied on.
Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others [1977] 1
SCR 925 : (1977) 1 SCC 369; H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma & Ors. [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 426; Indu Bala Bose
& Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr. [1982] 1 SCR 1188 :
(1982) 1 SCC 20; PPK Gopalan Nambier v. PPK Balakrishnan
Nambiar & Ors. [1995] 2 SCR 585 : (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 664;
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (deceased) through LRs. & Ors. [2020] 7
SCR 131 : (2020) 16 SCC 209 – referred to.
Hames v. Hinkson, AIR 1946 PC 156 – referred to.

List of Acts
Succession Act, 1925; Evidence Act, 1872.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 259

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

List of Keywords
Will; Existence of suspicious circumstances; Non-mention of
existence of wife in the Will; Failure to give reasons for wife’s
disinheritance in the Will; Proof of Will; Suspicious circumstances’
vitiating Will; Testator’s lawfully wedded wife; Testator’s adopted
son; Deprivation of natural heir; Execution of Will; Normal line
of succession; Prudence; Benefit of inheritance to natural heirs;
Invalidating the Will; Proof of signatures on Will; Registration;
Performance of last rites of testator; Hindu/Sikh family, last rites
performed by Male Sapinda relations; Free Will’ of testator;
Expungement in Will.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 3509-3510
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 837 &
958 of 1996.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Neelmani Pant,
Ms. Ananya Basudha, Ravindra Pal Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv., Vishal Mahajan, Anil Kumar, Bhaskar Y.
Kulkarni.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. The appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree
dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
R.S.A. No.837 of 1996 and R.S.A. No.958 of 1996 setting aside the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
and declaring the 1st respondent as the owner and in possession
of the suit land.
260 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Facts
2. One Maya Singh was owner of land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas
in village Sathiala1. Appellant is the nephew of Maya Singh. 1st
respondent is Maya Singh’s wife. Gurpal Singh (hereinafter referred
to as 2nd respondent) claimed to be the adopted son of Maya Singh
and 1st respondent. Maya Singh died on 10.11.1991. On 27.10.1992,
the suit land was mutated in favour of 1st respondent. Apprehending
that 1st respondent was taking steps to alienate the property, appellant
filed a Suit RBT No. 329/1992 by propounding a Will executed by
Maya Singh on 16.05.1991, bequeathing the land to him. In this
suit, appellant contended his uncle, Maya Singh was married to one
Joginder Kaur who had pre-deceased him and 1st respondent was
not his lawfully wedded wife or 2nd respondent, their adopted son.
3. Whereas respondents filed another suit seeking declaration that
1st respondent is the lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh and 2nd
respondent is their adopted son.
4. Trial Court dismissed the respondents’ suit holding that 2nd respondent
was not the adopted son of Maya Singh and decreed the appellant’s
suit declaring that the Will dated 16.05.1991 propounded by the latter
was genuine and by virtue of the Will, he was the lawful owner of
the suit land. However, the Court held 1st respondent is the lawfully
wedded wife of Maya Singh.
5. 1st respondent preferred two appeals challenging the dismissal of
her suit as well as against the judgment and decree passed in the
appellant’s suit. The appeals were disposed of by the Additional District
Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”)
upholding the judgment and decree passed in the appellant’s suit.
6. Being aggrieved, 1st respondent filed Second Appeals being RSA
No.958 of 1996 and RSA No.837 of 1996. The High Court framed
the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the execution of Will dated 16.05.1991, set up
by Gurdial Singh, was duly proved?”
Holding that the suspicious circumstance namely, non-mention of 1st
respondent who is the wife of the testator Maya Singh and the reasons
for her disinheritance in the Will exposed absence of ‘free disposing

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 261

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

mind’ of the testator, High Court reversed the concurrent findings of
the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and held 1st respondent was
the owner and was entitled to possession of the suit land.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant is before
us. During the pendency of the appeal, both the appellant and 1st
respondent died and have been substituted by their respective legal
representatives.
8. The principal issue which falls for consideration is as follows:-
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
non-mention of the status of 1st respondent as wife of the
testator and failure to give reasons for her disinheritance
in the Will dated 16.05.1991 is a suspicious circumstance
which exposes lack of a free disposing mind of the testator,
rendering the Will invalid?

Arguments
9. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Counsel argued that the Will is a
registered one and its execution has been lawfully proved. Appellant
had examined PW-2 Surinder Kumar, Scribe of the Will and PW-3
Chanan Singh, one of the attesting witnesses. PW-2 deposed he
scribed the Will at the instance of Maya Singh. It was read over to
Maya Singh and the latter had signed in presence of the attesting
witnesses Chanan Singh (PW-3) and Pesra Singh. PW-3 stated
he was the attesting witness and the Will was presented before
Sub-Registrar where it was again read over to the testator. Their
evidence could not be discredited during cross-examination. Mere
non-mention of 1st respondent’s name cannot be a ground to hold
that the Will is not a genuine one. It was further contended that the
monies left by Maya Singh had been given to 1st respondent and
she was also entitled to his pension.
10. Per contra, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel submitted
1 st respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh.
Relationship between the couple was good as would be evidenced
from 1st respondent’s deposition that she was living with Maya
Singh till his death. The Trial Court glossed over this evidence and
came to a perverse finding that she had not served Maya Singh.
While relations between the couple were good, appellant disputed
1st respondent’s status as the wife of Maya Singh. Non-mention of
262 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1st respondent’s name and the reasons for her disinheritance in the
Will must be viewed from this sinister design of the appellant. His
effort not only to disinherit the 1st respondent but also to deny her
the very status as his wife is eloquent in the omission of her status
as wife in the Will. Viewed from this perspective, the tenor of the
Will demonstrates the masked voice and intention of the appellant
and not the free disposing mind of the testator. Courts below erred
in applying the correct legal principles and erroneously held that this
suspicious circumstance did not vitiate the Will.

Proof of Will: Legal Principles
11. A Will has to be proved like any other document subject to the
requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that is examination
of at least of one of the attesting witnesses. However, unlike other
documents, when a Will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the
land of living. This casts a solemn duty on the Court to ascertain
whether the Will propounded had been duly proved. Onus lies on
the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the
mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on
the free disposing mind of the testator. Only when the propounder
dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience
of the court that the testator had duly executed the Will out of his
free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the Will be
accepted as genuine. In Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and
others2, this Court referring to H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.
Thimmajamma & Ors.3 enumerated the principles relating to proof
of Will:-

“10. ***** **** **** ****
“1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other
document, the test to be applied being the usual test of
the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As
in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of
proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical
certainty.

2 (1977) 1 SCC 369.
3 [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 426.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 263

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will
to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as
required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting
witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving
its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and
subject to the process of the court and capable of giving
evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death
of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never
available for deposing as to the circumstances in which
the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an
element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether
the document propounded is proved to be the last will and
testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on
the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof
of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded
by suspicious circumstances stand on a different
footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and
unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself
taking a leading part in the making of the will under
which he receives a substantial benefit and such other
circumstances raise suspicion about the execution
of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the
mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the
signature of the testator or that the testator was in a
sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the
time when the will was made, or that those like the wife
and children of the testator who would normally receive
their due share in his estate were disinherited because
the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding
them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes
the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the
circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will
excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must
remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can
be accepted as the last will of the testator.
5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of
264 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved.
That test emphasises that in determining the question
as to whether an instrument produced before the court
is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to
decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious
circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the
will has been validly executed by the testator.
6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion
etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have
to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such
pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution
of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator
was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the
initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable
doubts in the matter.”
The Court further held:-
“9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded
in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between
the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an
adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter
of the court›s conscience and then the true question
which arises for consideration is whether the evidence
led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the
conscience of the court that the will was duly executed
by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction
unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and
convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances
surrounding the making of the will.”
12. Similarly in Ram Piari vs. Bhagwant & Ors.4 this Court held when
suspicious circumstance exists, Courts should not be swayed by
due execution of the Will alone:
“3. ……………….Unfortunately none of the courts paid any
attention to these probably because they were swayed with
due execution even when this Court in Venkatachaliah

4 (1993) 3 SCC 364.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 265

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

case [AIR 1959 SC 443 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 426] had
held that, proof of signature raises a presumption about
knowledge but the existence of suspicious circumstances
rebuts it…………….”
13. There is no cavil when suspicious circumstances exist and have not
been repelled to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court would not
be justified in holding that the Will is genuine since the signatures
have been duly proved and the Will is registered one5.

Parameters to ascertain ‘suspicious circumstances’ vitiating
a Will:-
14. This brings us to the next issue i.e. what are the suspicious
circumstances which may vitiate the disposition. In Indu Bala Bose
& Ors. vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr.6 the Court held any and
every circumstance is not a “suspicious” circumstance.
“8. Needless to say that any and every circumstance is
not a “suspicious” circumstance. A circumstance would
be “suspicious” when it is not normal or is not normally
expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a
normal person.”
The Court quoted the Privy Council’s elucidation in Hames v. Hinkson7
of suspicious circumstances as follows:
“17……………where a Will is charged with suspicion, the
rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate
persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the
Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute
and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close
his mind to the truth.”
It was again reiterated in PPK Gopalan Nambier vs. PPK Balakrishnan
Nambiar & Ors.8 that suspected features should not be mere fantasies
of a doubting mind.

5 AIR 1962 SC 567, Para 23.
6 (1982) 1 SCC 20.
7 AIR 1946 PC 156.
8 (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 664.
266 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“5……………It is trite that it is the duty of the propounder
of the will to prove the will and to remove all the suspected
features. But there must be real, germane and valid
suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind.”
15. It is from this prism, we need to examine whether the High Court
was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the appellate court and holding the Will was vitiated due to
existence of suspicious circumstances.

Findings of the Trial Court
Trial Court dealt with this issue in the following manner:
“As discussed above, defendant No. 1 is the widow of
Maya Singh deceased. In Smt. Bhagya Wati Jain’s case
(supra) it was held that deprivation of legal heir from
succession may be one of the suspicious circumstances
along with other but that by itself is not sufficient ground to
raise presumption against the Will. Admittedly, defendant
No. 1, who is widow of Maya Singh, has been dis-inherited.
Statement of Jagir Kaur defendant No. 1 who appeared
as DW3 reads as follow:-
“I was married with Maya Singh, I lived with Maya
Singh as his wife till his death. We took Guirpal Singh
as our adopted son. He is the son of my sister. At the
time of adoption Gurwas distributed. Maya Singh was
in service and I draw pension. We are in possession
of the land in suit. Maya Singh never told me having
executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff. He was not
on speaking terms with the plaintiff. I reside in the
house of Maya Singh”.
Jagir kaur has no where stated that the served Maya
Singh during his life time. That she actually resided with
Maya Singh on the day the Will was executed i.e. on
16.5.91. She is again silent whether she performed the
last rites of Maya Singh. In the circumstances if Maya
Singh did not mention about her in the Will the same is
not required to be explained by the plaintiff. No doubt Arjan
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 267

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

Singh and Naranjan Singh have stated that last rites were
performed by the defendant No. 1. But their statements
are to corroborate the statement of the defendant No. 1
and when the defendant No. 1 herself is silent about the
service rendered to Maya Singh, statement of Arjan Singh
and Naranjan Singh did not prove that Maya Singh was
actually served and lived with defendant No. 1. As stated
above there is nothing against Surinder Kumar and Chanan
Singh PWs who proved the due execution of the Will by
Maya Singh and if the widow had been deprived, of the
Will cannot be discarded on this sole ground.”

Findings of the First Appellate Court
First Appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court holding:
“From this catena of judicial pronouncements there can
be no manner of doubt that mere deprivation of a legal;
heir or mere non mention of such legal heir’s name in the
testamentary disposition, in itself, does not invalidate the
will. A careful perusal of the will would reveal that the same
purport to beat the signatures of testator Maya Singh (since
deceased) in English. It is an admitted case of the parties
that Maya Singh had been serving as a Havaldar in the Army
and had retired from Military service which implies that he
was an educated person. The will in dispute is a registered
document on which the signatures of the testator or of the
attesting witnesses have not been challenged by Jagir Kaur.
There is nothing on the record, if Maya Singh was suffering
from any mental incapacity to execute the will. The written
statement of Jagir Kaur is quite silent with regards to the fact
that Maya Singh was not in sound state of disposing mind.
She has alleged that Maya Singh deceased was suffering
from paralysis for the last more than 10 months before his
death. Assuming it to be so, he might had been treated
upon. Evidence regarding his treatment could have been
produced by Jagir Kaur. There is no such evidence to the
effect that he was paralytic without there being evidence,
this plea remains unsubstantiated. Jagir Kaur, appearing
as DW3 stated in her cross examination that Maya Singh
268 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

had executed a will in her favour. She has not set up the
same in her written statement nor produced the sesame
on record for the reasons best known to her. Therefore,
an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that no
valid will has been executed by Maya Singh deceased in
her favour. Further, there is no allegation from the side of
Jagir Kaur defendant that the marginal witnesses of the
will Ex. P. 1 or the Sub Registrar by whom the same was
registered were in collusion with the legatee Gurdial Singh.
There is no gain saying the fact that Jagir Kaur is drawing
pension of Maya Singh being his widow. Ex. P. 7, is the
certified copy of the order dated 29.9.1994 which purport
to have been handed down by Commissioner (Appeals)
Jalandhar Division. In its concluding paragraph, it has been
mentioned that the petitioner (referring to Gurdial Singh)
has explained that respondent No. 1 (referring to Jagir
Kaur) was given the entire money left by the deceased
(Maya Singh) and she was also entitled to get pension. My
be that due to adjustment of pension and other deposits,
Maya Singh had deprived Jagir Kaur of her state in the will
and for that he did not think it proper to make reference to
her in the disputed will.”

Findings of the High Court
High Court reversed these findings and held as under:-
“The complete silence on the part of the executant qua his
wife, while executing the Will, renders the will a suspicious
document and leads to the inference that the same had
not been executed by the executant of his free disposing
mind. Rather it leads to the inference that the propounder
of the Will might have influenced the executant to execute
the Will in his favour. In these circumstances, the Courts
below erred in holding that the Will dated 16.5.1991 was
a genuine document.”

Analysis
16. We are conscious that deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may
not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 269

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line
of succession.9 However, in Ram Piari (supra), this Court held
prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to
natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will
in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not
give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge
that the disposition was a voluntary act.10
17. It was rightly indicated in Leela Rajagopal vs. Kamala Menon
Cocharan11 when unusual features appear in a Will or unnatural
circumstances surround its execution, the Court must undertake
a close scrutiny and make an overall assessment of the unusual
circumstances before accepting the Will. The Court held as follows:
“13. A will may have certain features and may have been
executed in certain circumstances which may appear to
be somewhat unnatural. Such unusual features appearing
in a will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its
execution will definitely justify a close scrutiny before the
same can be accepted. It is the overall assessment of
the court on the basis of such scrutiny; the cumulative
effect of the unusual features and circumstances which
would weigh with the court in the determination required
to be made by it. The judicial verdict, in the last resort,
will be on the basis of a consideration of all the unusual
features and suspicious circumstances put together and
not on the impact of any single feature that may be found
in a will or a singular circumstance that may appear from
the process leading to its execution or registration. This,
is the essence of the repeated pronouncements made by
this Court on the subject including the decisions referred
to and relied upon before us.”
18. What boils down from this discussion is that suspicious circumstance
i.e. non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her
disinheritance in the Will ought not to be examined in isolation# but

9 (1995) 4 SCC 459, (2004) 2 SCC 321 and (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 665.
10 (1990) 3 SCC 364, Para 2.
11 (2014) 15 SCC 570.
# Ed. Note: “isolation” instead of “insolation” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
270 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in the light of all attending circumstances of the case. It would be
argued that proof of signatures on the Will and its registration dispels
such suspicious circumstance. On a first blush, this submission
appears to be attractive till one delves further into the peculiar and
unique circumstances of the case.
19. Appellant’s case was not only to propound the Will in his favour
but even to deny the very status of 1st respondent as Maya Singh’s
wife. When one reads the contents of the Will, appellant’s stand
is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The Will is a cryptic
one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e.
the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the
Will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own
wife and natural heir, i.e. the 1st respondent, or the reason for
her disinheritance. Evidence on record shows 1st respondent was
residing with Maya Singh till the latter’s death. Nothing has come
on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per
the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled
to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator’s conduct in
accepting 1st respondent as his lawfully wedded wife. Further, the
Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites
of Maya Singh by 1st respondent hinted at sour relations between
the couple. Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed
by Male Sapinda relations. Given this practice, 1st respondent not
performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of
indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter’s lifetime.
In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his
lifetime, denied his marriage with 1st respondent or admitted that
their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very
existence in the Will. Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale
insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself. A cumulative
assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual
omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives
rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates
of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator.
20. In this background, we have no hesitation to hold that non-mention
of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will,
is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 271

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant.
21. We are not impressed with reference to Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram
(deceased) through LRs. & Ors.12 that mere non-mention of some
natural heirs would not vitiate the Will. In Dhanpat (Supra), the wife
who had been disinherited, herself admitted that she had been
ousted by her husband. On the other hand, DW3 unequivocally
stated that she was living with her husband till his death and the
specious rationale given that she may have been disinherited as
Maya Singh’s monies had been settled in her favour and she was
entitled to pension is hardly convincing. No evidence was led to show
whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st
respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a
man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement
in the Will.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the impugned judgment and
dismiss the appeals. Pending application (s), if any, stands disposed
of.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

12 (2020) 16 SCC 209.