/2022 INSC 0244/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13840 of 2019) 
SWARNALATHA & ORS.         ...APPELANT(S)
VERSUS
KALAVATHY & ORS.              ...RESPONDENT(S)
 
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian
1. The probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last
Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother,
having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section
384   of   the   Indian   Succession   Act,   1925   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“ the Act ”), one set of legatees claiming under the Will have come up
with the above appeal.
2. We   have   heard   Mr.   V.   Prabhakar,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants   and   Mr.   Jayanth   Muthraj,   learned   senior   counsel
1

appearing for the respondents.
3. The  couple, Mannar  Reddiar  and  Adhilakshmiammal had  two
sons   by   name   V.M.   Chandrasekaran   and   V.M.   Sivakumar   and   a
daughter by name Kalavathy.
4. The   mother   Adhilakshmiammal   died   on   14.08.1995.   She   left
behind   a   Will   dated   30.01.1995,   bequeathing   the   properties
purchased   by   her   and   the   properties   which   she   got   from   her
maternal uncle, in favour of her two sons. The daughter Kalavathy
was not given any share, on the ground that she had already been
provided sufficiently.
5. The father Mannar Reddiar died on 08.08.2000. He left behind
a Will dated 10.12.1998 bequeathing his properties in favour of his
two   sons   and   his   grandchildren.   The   daughter   Kalavathy   was   not
allotted   any   property   even   under   this   Will,   but   the   Will   contained
reasons.  
6. The   eldest   son   V.M.   Chandrasekaran   died   subsequently   in
October, 1999, leaving  behind  him  surviving, his wife Swarnalatha
and two sons by name C. Karthikeyan and C. Rishikesan, who are
the appellants herein.
2

7. Thereafter, the daughter Kalavathy and the surviving son V.M.
Sivakumar (of the testators) filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.387
of 2005 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Poonamallee. Upon
coming to know of the same, the appellants herein who are the wife
and sons of the eldest son V.M. Chandrasekaran filed a petition in
probate O.P No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Vellore, under Sections 270, 276 and 289 of the Act for the grant of
probate   of   the   Wills   of   Mannar   Reddiar   and   Adhilakshmiammal.
The  petition  was  hotly  contested by   the  daughter   and  other  son   of
the testators. However, by a judgment dated 7.06.2010, the District
Court   granted   probate   of   both   the   Wills   namely   the   Will   dated
30.01.1995   executed   by   the   mother   Adhilakshmiammal   and   the
Will dated 10.12.1998 executed by the father Mannar Reddiar.  
8. Challenging   the   judgment   of   the   Probate   Court,   the   daughter
and the other son of the testators (respondents 1 and 2 herein) filed
an appeal under Section 384 of the Act on the file of the High Court
of  Judicature at  Madras. The  said  appeal  was allowed by  the  High
Court   by   the   impugned   judgment   on   the   ground   that   there   are
suspicious   circumstances   surrounding   the   execution   of   both   the
3

Wills. Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment, the legatees are on
appeal before us.
9. The claim of the appellants before the Probate Court was that
the parents executed their last Will and Testament, in a sound and
disposing   state   of   mind   and   that   those   Wills   were   executed   in   the
manner prescribed by law. To establish the execution of the Will of
the mother Adhilakshmiammal, in terms of Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, the appellants examined Mr. S. Rajasekaran as
PW­2. He was one of the attestors of the Will. The other attestor of
the Will was none else than the father Mannar Reddiar. One Mr. B.
Nithyanandham,   the   scribe   of   the   Will   of   the   Mother   was   also
examined as PW­3.
10. One Mr. M. Dakshinamurthy, who was one of the attestors of
the Will of the father  Mannar  Reddiar, was examined as PW­4 and
the   scribe  of  the   said  Will   by   name  Mr.  V. Sivaram,  was  examined
as PW­5.  
11. While the Will executed by the mother Adhilakshmiammal was
an   unregistered   Will,   the   Will   executed   by   the   father   Mannar
Reddiar   was   a   registered   Will.   Both   these   Wills   were   marked   as
4

Exhibits   P­1   and   P­2   respectively.   The   death   certificates   of   the
testators were marked as Exhibits P­3 and P­4 and the copy of the
plaint in the partition suit filed by the respondents was marked as
Exhibit P­5.
12. The   daughter   Kalavathy   (Respondent   No.1)   examined   herself
as   RW­1   and   the   other   brother   Shri   V.M.   Sivakumar   (Respondent
No.2)   examined   himself   as   RW­2.   No   documents   were   marked   on
the side of the respondents.
13. The   respondents   contested   the   probate   proceedings   on   the
ground   that   their   parents   never   executed   any   Will   and   that   the
elder son V.M. Chandrasekaran played a fraud by taking signatures
of the mother on blank papers and fabricating the same into a Will
and   that   in   any   case   the   testators   had   no   right   to   dispose   of   the
properties by way of a Will.
14. Before   the   Probate   Court,   the   respondents   focused   their
attention   on   the   so­called   suspicious   circumstances   surrounding
both   the   Wills.   Though   the   respondents   also   raised   a   contention
that the testators had no right to dispose of those properties by way
of   a   Will,   the   Probate   Court   rejected   the   same   outright   on   the
5

ground  that  the  scope  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Probate  Court  was  not
to decide disputed questions of title to any property.
15. Insofar   as   the   allegations   of   suspicious   circumstances   are
concerned,   the   Probate   Court   was   not   convinced   that   the
circumstances highlighted by the respondents raised any suspicion.
Therefore,   the   court   of   original   jurisdiction   ordered   the   grant   of
probate.
16. While   reversing   the   Judgment   of   the   Probate   Court,   the   High
Court recorded the following findings:
(i) Adhilakshmiammal, the testatrix of the unregistered Will
(Exhibit   P­1)   dated   30.01.1995   was   said   to   be   suffering
from   ailments,   prior   to   the   execution   of   the   Will.   The
ailments could be physical or  mental and while  physical
ailment   cannot   be   a   ground   to   question   the   veracity   of
the   Will,   mental   ailment   will   certainly   be   a   ground.   The
non­furnishing of the particulars of the ailments suffered
by the testatrix Adhilakshmiammal created a doubt;
(ii) The   failure   of   the   legatees   to   probate   the   Will   of   the
mother   Adhilakshmiammal   during   the   life   time   of   the
father Mannar Reddiar is a suspicious circumstance; 
(iii) According   to   PW­1,   the   Will   executed   by   the   father
Mannar   Reddiar,   marked   as   Exhibit   P­2   was   written
during   night   hours   of   10.12.1998   but   according   to   the
6

evidence   of   PWs   4   and   5   (one   of   the   attestors   and   the
scribe)   the   Will   was   written   at   7:00   a.m.   and   was
registered at 3:00 p.m. on 10.12.1998. The contradiction
between   the   statement   of   PW­1   and   the   statements   of
PWs 4 and 5 in this regard created suspicion.
(iv) The   ignorance   of   PW­1   about   the   date   and   time   of
registration   of   the   Will   of   the   father   was   one   more
circumstance that created a suspicion.
(v) The   failure   of   the   father   to   ensure   the   presence   of   the
daughter   and   the   second   daughter­in­law   during   the
execution   of   both   the   Wills   is   one   more   circumstance
creating a suspicion.
(vi) The   presence   of   the   first   appellant   herein   at   the   time   of
execution   of   both   the   Wills,   despite   the   appellant   No.1
being   a   direct   beneficiary,   is   also   a   circumstance   to   be
taken notice of.
(vii) Exhibit   P­1   (Will)   executed   by   the   mother   runs   to   six
pages.   The   signature   of   the   testatrix   is   found   exactly   at
the same location in pages 4 and 6. The super­imposition
of pages 4 and 6 shows that the signature of the testatrix
had been taken in Exhibit P­1 (Will) at the same place.
(viii) The   line   space   in   the   first   part   of   Exhibit   P­1   (Will)   is
more   than   the   line   space   in   other   parts   of   the   Will.
There is some difference in the style of writing in the first
two   pages   from   the   writing   in   the   last   two   pages   of   the
Will. The signatures of the attestors of and the scribe are
7

found   within   a   small   space.   The   signature   of   Mannar
Reddiar as an attesting witness to Exhibit P­1 (Will) is not
found below the word ‘witness’ but found by the side.
(ix) It   is   not   clear   as   to   how   appellant   No.1   came   into   the
possession   of   the   Will.   There   is   no   material   to   show
whether   the   first   appellant’s   husband   V.M.
Chandrasekaran   pre­deceased   the   parents.   In   this
context   the   delay   in   seeking   probate   creates   a   serious
doubt.
(x) The total exclusion of the daughter from the bequest and
the failure to mention in the Wills, the dates on which the
daughter was paid certain amounts, are crucial.
17. But each one of the above circumstances, neither individually
nor   collectively   creates   a   suspicion.   The   signature   of   the   mother
Adhilakshmiammal   in   Exhibit   P­1   (Will)   is   not   disputed.   It   was
executed on 30.01.1995 and her husband namely Mannar Reddiar
was one of the attestors to the Will. In fact the reading of Exhibit P­
1   (Will)   goes   to   show   that   the   daughter   Kalavathy   was   given   in
marriage to a bank employee way back in the year 1970. According
to   Exhibit   P­1   (Will),   the   daughter   was   provided   50   sovereigns   of
gold jewellery at the time of the wedding. She was also given various
amounts   at   different   points   of   time   totaling   to   Rs.75,000/­.   It   was
8

further   claimed   in   Exhibit   P­1   (Will)   that   the   mother   gave
Rs.25,000/­ to the daughter Kalavathy for the purpose of purchase
of   two   plots   of   land   at   Ambattur,   in   the   outskirts   of   Chennai.   The
Will   also   mentions   that   the   daughter’s   daughter   was   given   in
marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar. This is the reason why
the   second   son   V.M.   Sivakumar   joined   hands   with   the   daughter
Kalavathy.   Exhibit   P­1   also   makes   a   mention   about   the   sum   of
Rs.40,000/­   paid   towards   the   discharge   of   a   debt   incurred   by
Kalavathy’s husband (son­in­law).
18. Unfortunately,   the   High   Court   completely   overlooked   all   the
above   aspects   and   proceeded   to   invent   reasons   to   justify   a
conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning.  
19. Similarly Exhibit P­2 (Will of the father) contains recitals to the
effect   that   the   daughter’s   daughter   was   given   in   marriage   to   the
second   son   V.M.   Sivakumar   and   that   Adhilakshmiammal   had   left
behind a Will dated 30.01.1995.
20. Once   it   is   found   that   the   father   Mannar   Reddiar   not   only
attested the mother’s Will (Exhibit P­1) and once it is found that in
his own Will (Exhibit P­2), which is a registered Will, the father had
9

made   a   mention   about   the   mother’s   Will,   all   the   suspicious
circumstances   sought   to   be   projected   would   automatically   fall   to
the ground.
21. When   it   was   not   even   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   the
testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the High
Court found fault with the appellants for  not disclosing the nature
of   the   ailments   suffered   by   them.   The   exclusion   of   one   of   the
natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold
that   there   are   suspicious   circumstances.   The   reasons   given   in
Exhibit P­1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of
the   daughter   has   happened   in   a   very   natural   way.   If   Exhibit   P­1
(Will)   had   been   fabricated   on   blank   papers   containing   the
signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion for the
father   to   make   a   mention   in   his   own   Will   (Exhibit   P­2)   about   the
execution of the Will by the mother.
22. We do not know how the High Court held the delay on the part
of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious
circumstance.   Exhibit   P­1   was   executed   on   30.01.1995   and   the
testatrix   died   on   14.08.1995.   The   father   was   alive   till   08.08.2000.
10

Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate
of the said Will. After the death of Mannar Reddiar on 08.08.2000,
the appellants obviously had no support, due to the fact that V.M.
Chandrasekaran ( husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant
Nos.2   and   3 )   had   pre­deceased   the   father   Mannar   Reddiar.   It   is
recorded   in   the   impugned   Judgment   that   V.M.   Chandrasekaran
died in October­1999.
23. The   occasion   for   the   appellants   to   seek   probate   of   the   Will
arose only when the respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S.
No.387 of 2005. Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part
of the appellants in seeking probate.
24. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading
too  much  into   the  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  appellant  No.1
about   the   time   of   registration   of   Exhibit   P­2   (Will)   and   the   minor
contradictions  between  her  statement  as PW­1  and the  statements
of   PWs   4   and   5.   The   adverse   inference   sought   to   be   drawn   by   the
High   Court   about   the   failure   of   the   testator   Mannar   Reddiar   to
ensure   the   presence   of   the   daughter   and   the   second   daughter­in­
law at the time of execution of Exhibit P­2, has no basis in law. 
11

25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the
execution   of   a   Will   is   already   well­settled   and   it   needs   no
reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent
decisions of this Court in   Kavita Kanwar   vs.   Mrs. Pamela Mehta
and Ors. 1
 where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions
right   from   H.   Venkatachala   Iyengar   vs.   B.N.   Thimmajamma 2
.
But   cases   in   which   a   suspicion   is   created   are   essentially   those
where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental
capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact
that   almost   all   previous   decisions   of   this   Court   referred   to   in
Kavita   Kanwar   (supra)   list   out   circumstances,   which   in   the
context   of   the   lack   of   sound   and   disposing   state   of   mind   of   the
testator,   became   suspicious   circumstances.   In   the   matter   of
appreciating   the   genuineness   of   execution   of   a   Will,   there   is   no
place   for   the   Court   to   see   whether   the   distribution   made   by   the
testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does
not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.
26. It   is   not   difficult   for   an   objective   mind   to   understand   the
1    AIR 2020 SC 544
2    AIR 1959 SC 443
12

reasons   behind   the   daughter   and   the   second   son   of   the   testators
coming   together.   Under   both   the   Wills   Exhibit   P­1   and   P­2,   the
properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The
first   son   V.M.   Chandrasekaran   is   now   no   more.   Admittedly
Kalavathy’s daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar
(second   son   of   testator).   Therefore,   if   the   bequest   under   the   two
Wills   go,   V.M.   Sivakumar’s   family   may   eventually   receive   2/3 rd
share of the properties, which is more beneficial for V.M. Sivakumar
than   getting   half   share   under   the   Wills.   Unfortunately,   the   High
Court   completely   overlooked   this   aspect   and   started   analyzing   the
Wills with suspicion. Therefore, the impugned Judgment of the High
Court is incapable of being sustained.  
27. In   view   of   the   above   the   appeal   is   allowed.   The   impugned
judgment   of   the   High   Court   is   set   aside   and   the   Judgment   of   the
Principal District Court, Vellore granting  probate of both  the Wills,
is restored.  There will be no order as to costs. 
… ..…………....................J.
      (Hemant Gupta)
13

.…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
MARCH  30, 2022
NEW DELHI.
14