Can a Registered Will Be Deemed Invalid Without Proof That the Testatrix Understood Its Contents?

Court holds that mere registration and thumb impression are insufficient; reaffirms strict onus on propounder under Indian Succession Act for proving testamentary capacity and execution

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Even a registered will may be invalidated if there is no endorsement that its contents were read and explained to an illiterate testatrix.
• Omission of a known heir (daughter) without mention in the will raises strong suspicion of lack of testamentary capacity.
• Contradictory evidence on the place of execution or identity of attesting witnesses fatally undermines proof of a will.
• The onus under Indian Succession Act (Sections 232 & 276) to establish sound and disposing mind and understanding of a will is stringent.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The propounder must satisfy Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act: proof of signature, mental capacity, understanding and free will.
2. Contradictions between PW-2’s testimony and the attesting witness affidavit (Ex.P13) on whether execution was at home or at the Sub-Registrar’s office discredit the evidence.
3. The will misnames the testatrix as “Mrs. Champakammal” and omits daughter K.Mallika, creating suspicious circumstances.
4. Registration of the will, without proof that it was read over and explained, is insufficient to dispel doubt (per Rani Purnima Debi).
5. Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents (H. Venkatachala Iyengar; Rani Purnima Debi) and Madras HC decision (J. Mathew v. Leela Joseph) to affirm strict proof requirements.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (Plaintiffs):

• The will was executed by the testatrix in a sound and disposing state of mind, attested by two witnesses, and duly registered.
• The testatrix provided for all her children and imposed conditions to secure their interests, evidencing fairness.
• Registration is a significant factor supporting genuineness.

1st & 2nd Defendants (Omitted Daughters):

• The testatrix was illiterate, blind and deaf; the will was in English she could not understand, and she used her thumb impression.
• Misnaming the testatrix and omitting K.Mallika indicate forgery and undue influence.
• Mutation of revenue records and an agreement with a builder before probate demonstrate collusion to grab the property.

3rd–6th Defendants (Other LRs):

• The will was properly executed and registered; accordingly, the suit should have been decreed.

Factual Background

K. Shenbagavalli Ammal died on 22 Jan 2004 after executing a registered will on 12 Aug 1996 that bequeathed her Chennai residence to two sons and a daughter-in-law—omitting one daughter and misnaming herself. Plaintiffs (sons and daughter-in-law) filed T.O.S. No. 14/2008 under Sections 232 & 276 seeking letters of administration with will annexed. The omitted daughters contested validity, alleging forgery, lack of testamentary capacity, and collusion. Evidence included attesting witness affidavits, cross-examination revealing contradictions, and pre-probate land mutations. The court dismissed the suit, holding the will invalid.

Statutory Analysis

• Sections 232 & 276, Indian Succession Act, 1925: jurisdiction to grant letters of administration with will annexed.
• Section 63, Indian Succession Act: formal requirements for execution of a will—testator’s signature in presence of two witnesses, mental capacity, understanding of contents.
• Judicial interpretation emphasizes that proof of registration must be accompanied by evidence that the testator knew and approved the will’s contents.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed

Citations

• H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, AIR 1959 SC 443
• Rani Purnima Debi and Another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Another, AIR 1962 SC 567
• J. Mathew (died) & Others v. Leela Joseph, (2007) 5 Mad LJ 740 (2007) 3 LW 916