Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has said that mere registration of a will does not establish its authenticity, but the propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.The HC said so while quashing a civil court’s order granting probate of a will, which was under challenge before the court. This was a long-pending dispute between two brothers. The case details reveal that their father passed away in 1981. One of the sons claimed that the father wrote a will eight days before his demise and bequeathed a house in Bapunagar to him. The will was registered after his death. He sought probate of the will from a civil court, but the other son, objected to his plea. The court converted the case into a civil suit and passed a decree in first son’s favour.The other son moved the high court, and reiterated his objections. Both brothers passed away during the pendency of the litigation, and their legal heirs continued to fight.After the hearing, the high court found multiple anomalies and noted that the trial court had wrongly treated the contentious probate matter as a civil suit and granted a decree, contrary to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. It also said that the will did not appoint the first son as executor, meaning probate could not legally have been granted under Section 222; at best, he could have sought letters of administration.The HC also noted that the will was surrounded by unresolved suspicion. The father was suffering from advanced jaw and tongue cancer and underwent surgery. His medical records showed serious malignancy months before the alleged execution of the will. The HC found no convincing evidence revealing he was physically and mentally capable of travelling alone to Narol court, instructing a lawyer, and speaking clearly enough to execute the will.The HC also found the testimonies of the first son and the scribe of the will materially inconsistent regarding their presence and the sequence of signing. The court also flagged that the will dealt only with one property, omitted other assets and heirs, contained handwritten dates despite being typed the same day, and was registered posthumously.Justice J C Doshi allowed the other son’s appeal and said, “In light of various suspicious circumstances noted above, the plaintiff was required to remove the same by leading evidence. Mere registration of will does not establish genuineness of will. It is case where propounder failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of will and mere registration would not validate the will which is shrouded in suspicion.“
