The Supreme Court has held that a will which completely excludes a surviving widow while transferring property to distant relatives or persons with no close familial connection naturally gives rise to suspicion regarding its authenticity. The Court observed that since a widow is a Class I legal heir under succession law, any attempt to deprive her of inheritance without a convincing explanation requires careful judicial scrutiny.

The Court emphasized that in such cases, the burden rests heavily on the person relying on the will to establish that it was executed voluntarily by the testator with a clear understanding of its contents and legal consequences. It further observed that where genuine suspicious circumstances remain unresolved, appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent factual findings merely because another view is possible.

Allowing the civil appeal, a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment, which had overturned the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in a property inheritance dispute.

The dispute concerned agricultural land owned by Chhajju Ram, an illiterate farmer who died without children. Following his death, his widow, Bhambo Devi, instituted a civil suit claiming ownership of the property as his sole surviving Class I heir. She challenged a registered will relied upon by the defendants, alleging that it had never been executed by her husband and was the result of fraud and undue influence.

The defendants maintained that the deceased had voluntarily executed the registered will in their favour in recognition of the care and assistance they had extended to him and his wife.

The Trial Court accepted the widow's claim after finding that the alleged will was surrounded by several suspicious circumstances. These included the complete exclusion of the widow without any convincing justification, material alterations on the registration endorsement that were not authenticated by initials, and the defendants' failure to establish possession of the disputed property.

The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings, observing that the defendants had failed to prove any close relationship between the testator and the beneficiaries. It also noted unexplained alterations in the registration records, including changes to the presenter's name without proper authentication, which created serious doubt regarding the document's execution.

However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the concurrent findings in second appeal, holding that the will stood proved once an attesting witness established its execution in accordance with law and that the discrepancies relied upon by the lower courts were insufficient to invalidate the registered document.

Disagreeing with that approach, the Supreme Court restored the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Bench held that the complete disinheritance of the widow in favour of persons who were not shown to be close relatives, coupled with the testator's illiteracy and unexplained alterations in the registration endorsement, constituted significant suspicious circumstances. In such a situation, the propounders of the will were required to dispel every legitimate doubt, which they failed to do.

The Court also observed that once the courts below had concurrently recorded factual findings after appreciating the evidence, no substantial question of law arose warranting interference by the High Court in second appeal.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that there was no dispute regarding the deceased's ownership of the property or the plaintiff's status as his sole surviving Class I legal heir. It was contended that the burden to prove the will rested entirely on the defendants and that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence, leaving no scope for interference in second appeal.

The respondents contended that the plaintiff had taken inconsistent pleas by alleging both forgery and fraud, and argued that the registered will had been duly proved through an attesting witness. They further submitted that the alterations relied upon were confined to the registration endorsement and did not affect the contents of the will itself.

The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff's pleadings were legally sustainable, whether her failure to enter the witness box was fatal to the suit, whether the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and whether the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rejecting the respondents' objections, the Court held that alternative pleadings alleging fraud or undue influence did not amount to admitting the execution of the will. It also ruled that the plaintiff's failure to testify did not defeat her case because her status as the deceased's widow and sole Class I heir had not been specifically denied by the defendants and therefore stood admitted under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On the merits, the Court noted that the testator was illiterate, making it essential for the propounders to prove that he had executed the will voluntarily and with full knowledge of its contents. The Bench found several unexplained suspicious circumstances, including the complete exclusion of the widow, transfer of property to persons who were not close relatives, incorrect recitals explaining the disinheritance, and multiple unauthenticated alterations in the registration endorsement. These circumstances prevented the defendants from discharging the burden required in law.

The Supreme Court further reiterated that the existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding a will is essentially a question of fact. Concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court after appreciating evidence cannot ordinarily be disturbed in a second appeal unless shown to be perverse or legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had travelled beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reassessing factual findings that did not raise any substantial question of law.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and restored the concurrent decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It affirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the disputed property and passed no order as to costs.

Case: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass and Others (2026 INSC 669).