Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony about peripheral details do not amount to “suspicious circumstances” sufficient to discredit an otherwise validly executed Will. This judgment reaffirms and clarifies existing legal standards for proof of Wills, upholds the trial court’s approach over the first appellate court, and provides binding authority for courts addressing challenges to testamentary documents in civil disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/251/2014 of A.DEVARAJ Vs VASANTHI |
| CNR | HCMA011042442014 |
| Date of Registration | 05-03-2014 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside first appellate court’s decision; restores trial court judgment. |
| Type of Law | Civil—Succession/Probate (Proof and Challenge to Wills) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that minor inconsistencies or contradictions in the depositions of attesting witnesses, relating to peripheral matters such as seating positions or trivial customs, do not amount to “suspicious circumstances” undermining a Will’s validity. It reaffirmed that, once due execution and attestation are proved as per Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, proof is established unless there are real and substantial suspicious circumstances that genuinely shake the conscience of the court. Alternative and inconsistent pleas by a person challenging a will are permissible. The court also clarified that injunctions to protect property pending partition suits are permitted for preservation purposes. The appellate court’s rejection of the Will based on insignificant inconsistencies and perceived suspicious circumstances was perverse and contrary to settled legal principles. The trial court’s approach was restored. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court applied the principle that testimony must be read as a whole and minor discrepancies in witness recollection after many years do not constitute ground for suspicion. It distinguished prior cases based on factual context and explained that proof of due execution and attestation as required by law suffices, barring substantial suspicious circumstances. It considered social customs not to be rigid or decisive. The significance of attestation, soundness of mind at execution, and dispositive intent were all interpreted in accordance with the settled law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff (daughter) and defendant (son) of deceased testatrix (mother) contested partition of properties inherited under a 1990 registered partition deed. On her death in 2002, plaintiff claimed share by succession; defendant resisted, relying on an unregistered Will allegedly executed by the mother days before her death. Trial court found the Will valid; appellate court reversed, holding the Will suspicious. The Second Appeal focused on the evidentiary proof of the Will and the legitimacy of “suspicious circumstances” raised by plaintiff. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu under the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (on points of law and statutory construction). |
| Overrules | Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.33 of 2013 (Principal District Court, Erode). |
| Distinguishes | P. Jayajothi (MANU/TN/1527/2019), Lakshmi Devi Ammal (MANU/TN/7655/2019), Periyammal (MANU/TN/1703/2024), Gurdial Singh (2025 INSC 866), Lilian Coelho (2025) 2 SCC 633, Ramesh Chand (2025 INSC 1059) (on facts). |
| Follows | Leela & Others v. Muruganantham & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 16); Kavitha Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Others (2021) 11 SCC 209 (regarding holistic examination and suspicious circumstances). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Minor or natural inconsistencies in witness testimony about peripheral details are insufficient as “suspicious circumstances” to invalidate a Will proven in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
- Courts must assess the whole of the witness evidence harmoniously; isolated discrepancies do not vitiate an otherwise duly proven testament.
- Social customs (such as widows not wearing rings) cannot be treated as rigid legal presumptions.
- Proof of due execution and attestation by two witnesses (one deposed) satisfies initial burden; burden then shifts to challenger to prove real and substantial suspicious circumstances.
- A challenger to a Will can take alternative or inconsistent pleas without being precluded by procedural rules.
- Proof of illness or proximity to death, without cogent medical evidence of mental incapacity, is insufficient to disprove testamentary capacity.
- An injunction to protect the suit property is maintainable pending partition, even between co-owners, to preserve the subject matter.
- Mutation or delay in revenue records is not conclusive of title or validity of a Will.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment begins by identifying the core issue: whether minor inconsistencies in the testimony of attesting witnesses can be considered “suspicious circumstances” sufficient to invalidate a Will proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
- Both attesting witnesses and the scribe were examined eight years after execution; contradictions in their accounts regarding peripheral details were found immaterial by the trial court, and this view was preferred over the first appellate court’s.
- The court emphasized that minor discrepancies are natural over time and often enhance, rather than detract from, credibility.
- The validity of the Will was further supported by the fact that forensic expert comparison was not possible due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide admitted signatures, and thus no adverse inference could be drawn against the defendant.
- Illness or proximity to death does not amount to lack of testamentary capacity in the absence of cogent medical evidence; the law recognizes death-bed Wills provided statutory formalities and volition are met.
- Exclusion of a daughter from a Will is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance, particularly when justified by past provision in a prior partition.
- The court carefully distinguished prior case law cited by the plaintiff, noting dissimilar factual circumstances, particularly regarding concealment, incapacity, or questionable attestation.
- The first appellate court’s reliance on minor contradictions and speculative conclusions was held perverse.
- The legal burden rests upon the propounder of the Will, but the challenger is not barred from taking alternative pleas regarding its validity.
- The relief of injunction in a partition suit is maintainable for the limited purpose of preserving the property pending final decree.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendant/Propounder of Will)
- The Will was validly executed by the mother, proven via testimony of both attesting witnesses and scribe.
- Minor discrepancies in witness accounts are natural and not grounds for suspicion.
- The plaintiff was already provided for in a prior family arrangement/partition.
- There was full disclosure of the Will; mutation delays are irrelevant.
- Illness of testatrix did not amount to lack of testamentary capacity and was not supported by evidence.
Respondent (Plaintiff/Challenger of Will)
- Inconsistencies in attesting witnesses’ depositions raise suspicion about genuine execution.
- Customarily, a widow would not wear ornaments (contradicting witness description).
- The testatrix’s illness and proximity to death implied lack of capacity and resulted in suspicious execution.
- Exclusion of the plaintiff (daughter) from the Will itself was suspicious.
- Delay in mutation of patta and disclosure of the Will were relied upon to challenge the Will’s validity.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between a son and daughter over properties inherited from their mother, who had obtained the suit property through a prior partition. On the mother’s death in December 2002, the daughter sought her succession share, while the son defended the claim based on an unregistered Will dated 15.12.2002 in his favour. The trial court upheld the Will and dismissed the daughter’s suit for partition. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed, holding the Will suspicious. The Second Appeal was admitted with substantial questions of law regarding the evidentiary standard for proving Wills amid alleged suspicious circumstances.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Requires that a Will be attested by at least two witnesses.
- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requires that at least one attesting witness be examined to prove execution of a Will.
- The court clarified that satisfying these sections establishes due execution and attestation, but the Will can still be disbelieved if “real and substantial” suspicious circumstances are proven.
- Assessment of “suspicious circumstances” must be holistic, not isolated or based on minor inconsistencies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- Clarified that a party challenging a Will may take alternative or inconsistent pleas regarding its validity, regardless of their position as plaintiff or defendant.
- Reaffirmed maintainability of injunction relief in partition suits as a protective measure pending final adjudication.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – This judgment reaffirms and clarifies settled legal principles regarding proof of Wills and the evaluation of “suspicious circumstances” under the statutory framework.