Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011369-011369 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 20207/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Succession Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC permits the High Court to frame an additional substantial question of law only if that question is grounded in the parties’ pleadings, issues and evidence, and for reasons to be recorded. Absent any plea or issue under Section 67 ISA, the High Court could not void a will that was validly executed, attested under Section 63 ISA and proved. Concurrent findings of testamentary capacity and genuineness by three courts stood unassailable, and the testator’s wish as expressed in the joint will must prevail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
CR Pius and Philomina executed a 1999 settlement and a 2003 joint will bequeathing certain lands to their son (Appellant) with monetary charges on the properties in favor of other children. Suit for partition by other heirs was dismissed at trial and first appeal. Kerala High Court allowed a second appeal by framing an unpleaded question under Section 100(5) CPC and voided the will under Section 67 ISA. Supreme Court set aside that decision and restored testamentary succession. |
| Citations | 2025 INSC 1071 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All High Courts and Subordinate Courts on framing additional questions under Section 100(5) CPC and validity of wills |
| Persuasive For | Civil appellate benches, succession tribunals |
| Overrules | Kerala High Court judgment in RSA No. 94/2014 |
| Follows | Established precedents on Section 100 CPC procedure (Santosh Hazari, Mehboob-Ur-Rehman) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts must base any additional substantial question under Section 100(5) CPC on issues pleaded and evidence led, with recorded reasons.
- A will validly executed (Section 63 ISA) and proved cannot be invalidated under Section 67 ISA in the absence of any plea or suggestion invoking it.
- Failure to suggest discrepancies in cross-examination (Browne v. Dunn principle) weakens any challenge to attestation or execution.
- Concurrent findings on testamentary capacity by three courts are binding and not to be disturbed lightly.
- The testator’s last wish, once validly proved, must prevail over unpleaded legal doctrines.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined Section 100(5) CPC and held that the proviso to allow an unformulated substantial question of law is an exception requiring pleadings, issues, evidence and reasons to be recorded.
- Precedents (Santosh Hazari; Mehboob-Ur-Rehman; Gian Dass; Kirpa Ram) were applied to underscore strict limits on framing new questions at second appeal.
- The High Court’s framing of a Section 67 ISA issue without any plea or suggestion was contrary to procedural fairness and Audi Alteram Partem.
- The execution and attestation of the joint will were valid under Section 63 ISA, and concurrent findings on sound disposing mind and absence of undue influence were unchallenged.
- The Court set aside the High Court’s reliance on Section 67 ISA and reinstated the testamentary succession as directed by the will.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by framing an unpleaded question.
- The will was validly executed, attested and proved; fundamental right to testamentary disposition must be respected.
- Section 67 ISA was never pleaded or put to any witness; invoking it violates procedural fairness and Article 14.
Respondent
- Proviso to Section 100(5) CPC empowers the High Court to frame additional questions for reasons to be recorded.
- Section 67 ISA plainly voids a bequest to an attesting witness; mandatory statutory consequence.
- Intestate succession should apply, entitling each child to an equal share.
Factual Background
CR Pius and Philomina executed a registered settlement (1999) and a joint will (2003) bequeathing their lands to their son, imposing monetary charges in favor of other children. The heirs filed for partition alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Trial and first appellate courts upheld the will; Kerala High Court allowed a second appeal by invoking Section 67 ISA without any plea and voided the will. Supreme Court set aside that order and restored testamentary succession under the joint will.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100(5) of CPC: proviso allows framing of additional substantial questions only if grounded in pleadings, issues and evidence, with reasons recorded.
- Section 63 of Indian Succession Act: formal attestation requirements for valid wills.
- Section 67 of Indian Succession Act: voids testamentary disposition in favor of certain attesting witnesses—applicable only if duly pleaded and proved.
- Evidence Act, Section 141: definition of leading questions and necessity of suggestions in cross-examination (Browne v. Dunn).
Procedural Innovations
- Reinforces strict compliance with Section 100(5) CPC’s proviso and requirement to record reasons when framing additional substantial questions of law.
- Applies Browne v. Dunn principles to civil cross-examination on will execution and attestation.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – overturning Kerala High Court’s framing of unpleaded question under Section 100 CPC
- ✔ Precedent Followed – affirms established jurisprudence on Second Appeal procedure
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – conflicts with Kerala High Court’s RSA No. 94/2014 approach
Citations
2025 INSC 1071 (paras 17–23)