Supreme Court restores widow's inheritance rights by invalidating suspicious will

Sardari Lal, as legal representative of the original plaintiff Bhambo Devi (widow of Chhajju Ram), appealed against the High Court of Himachal Pradesh's judgment which had allowed the defendants' second appeal and dismissed the suit. Bhambo Devi had sued Bishan Dass and Ram Singh, claiming she was the sole owner of the suit property as her husband Chhajju Ram's only Class I heir, and that a registered will dated 06.11.1974 purportedly executed by Chhajju in favour of the defendants was forged. The trial court and first appellate court both found the will shrouded in suspicious circumstances: the testator's wife was disinherited without genuine reason; the legatees were not proven to be nephews of the testator; the reasons given for the bequest were found factually incorrect; there were unexplained cuttings on the registration endorsement where the executant's name was changed from 'Laxmi Kant Bassi' to 'Chhajju' without the Sub-Registrar's initials; and the only surviving attesting witness was examined while the second was not. The High Court reversed these findings in second appeal, holding the will was proved by the attesting witness under Section 63 of the Succession Act. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree. It held that proving a will is not confined to proving attestation under Section 63; the propounder must satisfy the court's conscience that the testator executed the will with free will and full understanding. The illiteracy of the testator, incorrect recitals in the will, disinheritance of the sole Class I heir in favour of non-relatives, and the uninitialed cuttings on the registration endorsement — which deprived the propounder of the presumption of due registration — together constituted unexplained suspicious circumstances. The High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by overturning concurrent findings of fact.

Bhambo Devi, widow of Chhajju Ram (an illiterate agriculturist), filed a suit claiming sole ownership of the suit property left by her husband who died intestate in 1992 without issue. The defendants claimed entitlement through a registered will dated 06.11.1974, by which Chhajju allegedly bequeathed all his properties to them, citing their services and nephewhood. Bhambo Devi challenged the will as forged, and after her death during appeal proceedings, Sardari Lal was impleaded as her legal representative.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. It restored the decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court, declaring the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit schedule property and granting permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The Court held there was no substantial question of law for the High Court to interfere under Section 100 CPC with the concurrent findings of fact discarding the will.

This judgment reinforces that a widow's right to inherit her husband's property cannot be easily defeated by a will that is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, particularly when the testator was illiterate and the will contained factually incorrect recitals. It clarifies that a propounder of a will must do more than merely prove attestation — the court's conscience must be satisfied about the testator's free will and full understanding. It also reaffirms the limits of High Court jurisdiction in second appeals under Section 100 CPC.