Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors

In the case of Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., decided on January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the validity of a will under dispute. The appellants, Leela and her sons, claimed exclusive rights to certain properties based on an unregistered will dated April 6, 1990, allegedly executed by the deceased, Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. The respondents, comprising the deceased's first wife and their children, contested this will, leading to legal proceedings.

Background:
Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar had two wives: his first wife, Rajammal, with whom he had three sons and a daughter, and his second wife, Leela, with whom he had two sons. In 1989, he executed a partition deed dividing his properties into four schedules:

• First Schedule: Retained by Balasubramaniya himself.
• Second Schedule: Allotted to his sons from his first marriage.
• Third Schedule: Allotted to his first wife, Rajammal.
• Fourth Schedule: Allotted to his daughter from his first marriage.

After Balasubramaniya's death in 1991, his children from the first marriage filed a partition suit seeking a 5/7th share in the properties retained by him (First Schedule). Leela and her sons contested this claim, presenting the 1990 unregistered will, which purportedly bequeathed the First Schedule properties to them.

Lower Courts' Findings:

Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the will to be "shrouded with suspicious circumstances" and ruled against its validity.

The courts noted several discrepancies:

• Contradictory Statements: The will stated that the testator was "with full conscious, with good memory and without instigation by anyone," yet also mentioned he was suffering from heart disease and had received treatment from several doctors.
• Active Involvement of Beneficiary: Leela, a primary beneficiary, denied involvement in the will's preparation, yet the stamp papers used were purchased in her name.
• Execution Location: The will was executed in Madurai, far from the testator's residence in Tenkasi, despite his poor health.
• Witness Testimony: One attesting witness, Leela's brother, claimed the will was read aloud to the testator by a notary public, but this was not documented in the will itself.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that mere registration of a will does not confer validity. The Court reiterated that the execution of a will must comply with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and its proof must align with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, at least one attesting witness must testify to the will's execution.

The Court further noted that the propounder of the will bears the burden of dispelling any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. In this case, the appellants failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the testator signed the will voluntarily, was of sound mind, and understood the nature and effect of its dispositions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellants did not prove the will's execution in accordance with legal requirements. The Court highlighted that the presence of suspicious circumstances, coupled with inadequate evidence from the propounders, rendered the will invalid. This judgment underscores the principle that mere registration of a will does not validate it; the will must be executed and proven in strict compliance with statutory mandates.