Authored by: Ms. Purvi Asher, Partner and Ms. Alisha Dsouza, Associate

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 17 July 2025 in Gurdial Singh (Deceased) through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Deceased) and Another, declared a will invalid due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. For more details, refer to the full judgment.

Background

The dispute pertains to land originally owned by Maya Singh, who died on 10 November 1991. The appellant, Gurdial Singh, was Maya Singh’s nephew, while the first respondent, Jagir Kaur, was Maya Singh’s lawfully wedded wife, and the second respondent, Gurpal Singh, claimed to be their adopted son. On 27 October 1992, the suit land was mutated in favor of Jagir Kaur, and on the same day, Gurdial Singh filed a suit, propounding a will dated 16 May 1991 (“Will”), allegedly executed by Maya Singh, bequeathing the land to him. Gurdial Singh contended that Maya Singh was married to Joginder Kaur, who predeceased him, and denied Jagir Kaur’s status as Maya Singh’s wife and Gurpal Singh’s status as their adopted son. Jagir Kaur and Gurpal Singh filed a suit seeking a declaration to reinforce their positions as Maya Singh’s wife and adopted son, respectively. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed their suit, holding that Gurpal Singh was not the adopted son but confirming Jagir Kaur as Maya Singh’s wife and declaring Gurdial Singh the owner of the suit land. However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in second appeals, reversed these decisions, holding that the Will was invalid due to suspicious circumstances.

Principal Issue

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-mention of the status of the first respondent as the wife of the testator and the failure to provide reasons for her disinheritance in the will dated 16 May 1991 constitute a suspicious circumstance that exposes a lack of a free disposing mind of the testator, rendering the Will invalid?

Held

The Supreme Court made the following key observations:

• Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding the Will: The Hon’ble Court ruled that the omission of Jagir Kaur’s position as Maya Singh’s wife and the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will were suspicious circumstances. This was exacerbated by the appellant’s attempt to refute Jagir Kaur’s marital status, which implied undue influence. The Hon’ble Court noted that evidence proved Jagir Kaur resided with Maya Singh until his death, with no indication of a disturbed relationship. The Hon’ble Court also noted that Jagir Kaur’s refusal to perform the final rites did not indicate a broken relationship, as it was customary for male relatives to perform the same.
• Legal Principles on Proof of Will: Citing precedents, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that a Will must be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the propounder bearing the onus to dispel suspicious circumstances. The appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the omission of Jagir Kaur’s status, and therefore, the Hon’ble Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the Will’s registration and witness testimonies were sufficient to establish its validity.

The Hon’ble Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the Will was invalid due to the appellant’s failure to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the omission of Jagir Kaur’s status and reasons for her disinheritance. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeals, affirming Jagir Kaur’s ownership and possession of the suit land.

MHCO Comment

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s careful examination of wills, especially when unusual factors, such as the unexplained exclusion of natural heirs, are involved. It sets a precedent for courts to scrutinize testamentary decisions that omit close relatives, particularly in cases where the legal status of a spouse is denied. The judgment is expected to reinforce protections for natural heirs and prompt testators to clearly justify the disinheritance of close family members to prevent potential legal disputes.

 

This update was released on 01 Aug 2025.

The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice. Please contact us directly on +91 22 40565252 or legalupdates@mhcolaw.com for any assistance.

Legal Update Team
MANSUKHLAL HIRALAL & COMPANY
Advocates, Solicitors and Notaries
T: +91 22 40565252
Mumbai Office: Surya Mahal, 2nd Floor, 5, Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023, India
Delhi Office: Block C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi - 110 014, India
www.mhcolaw.com

"Noted lawyer in the Real Estate practitioner from India" - Chambers & Partners

Please consider the environment before printing this email

The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. This communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken relying on the contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, or if you or your employer does not consent to email messages of this kind, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.