The Supreme Court, while delivering an important judgment in a family dispute relating to the partition of a father’s property, has clarified that if a will is proved in accordance with law, it cannot be treated as suspicious merely on the ground that one legal heir has been excluded from it.
The Supreme Court said that courts cannot become a substitute for the wishes of the testator.
The Court clarified that,
“We cannot put the testator in our shoes, and we should step into his. We cannot substitute our opinions in place of that of the testator; his desire prompted by his own justifications.”
The said order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah while allowing the appeal filed by K. S. Dinachandran.
The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court and dismissed the suit for partition.
According to the facts of the case, N. S. Sreedharan, a resident of Kerala, executed a registered will in the year 1988 bequeathing his property in favour of eight of his children, while excluding one daughter from the will. In the year 2011, the said daughter filed a suit for partition claiming that the father’s property was joint. The subordinate courts treated the will as suspicious and ruled in her favour.
Disagreeing with these findings, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of one surviving attesting witness fulfilled all the mandatory requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Court relied on a decision passed in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and said that,
“If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience.”
The Bench underlined that courts cannot place themselves in the position of the testator to decide how the property ought to be distributed. The duty of the Court is only to examine whether the will was executed of free will and in accordance with law.
The Court further observed that,
“The execution of the will was in the year 1988, the registration being on the very next day. The examination of the witness was on 25.05.2012, twenty-four years later.”
In such circumstances, when evidence is recorded after such a long lapse of time, a witness cannot be expected to recall events with “mathematical precision.” No concrete doubt was found with respect to the mental or physical condition of the testator, nor was any suspicious circumstance proved.
The Court held that,
“We are not on equity, and the wish of the testator assumes pre-eminence. The last will and testament of the testator cannot be digressed from or frustrated.”
Accordingly, the plaintiff daughter was held not entitled to any share in the property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the partition suit in its entirety.
Case: K. S. Dinachandran vs Shyla Joseph & Ors.
Date of Order: 17.12.2025
See Order: K. S. Dinachandran vs Shyla Joseph & Ors.
