A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 257 : 2025 INSC 866 revolves around the judicial scrutiny of the genuineness of a Will allegedly executed by one Maya Singh. The appellant, his nephew, propounded the Will dated 16.05.1991, whereby Maya Singh purportedly bequeathed his property to him, excluding his wife, Jagir Kaur (respondent no.1). The dispute turned upon whether the omission of the wife’s existence and reasons for her disinheritance constituted a “suspicious circumstance” sufficient to invalidate the Will. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld the Will, emphasizing its due execution, registration, and proof by attesting witnesses. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed these concurrent findings, holding that the Will was tainted with suspicious circumstances as it failed to even mention the lawful wife or explain her disinheritance. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that while depriving natural heirs does not ipso facto invalidate a Will, complete erasure of a lawful spouse’s existence, coupled with evidence of cordial relations, suggested undue influence and lack of free will. The Court reiterated principles from landmark judgments like H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1959 Supp. 1 SCR 426), Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369, Ram Piari v. Bhagwant (1993) 3 SCC 364, and Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan (2014) 15 SCC 570, emphasizing that proof of Will demands removal of suspicious circumstances. It held that non-mention of the wife, denial of her marital status by the propounder, and the absence of evidence of strained relations demonstrated undue influence, rendering the Will invalid. This decision thus reinforces the judicial duty to scrutinize Wills in light of surrounding circumstances, ensuring that the testator’s free will is not supplanted by coercion or manipulation.

Keywords: Will, suspicious circumstances, disinheritance, omission of wife, free disposing mind, undue influence, proof of Will, Indian Succession Act, natural heirs, registration, last rites.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal Nos. 3509–3510 of 2010

iii) Judgement Date:
17 July 2025

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi

vi) Author:
Justice Joymalya Bagchi

vii) Citation:
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 257 : 2025 INSC 866

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925

• Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly overruled; earlier contrary concurrent findings of lower courts set aside.

x) Related Law Subjects:
Civil Law, Succession Law, Family Law, Property Law, Evidence Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The legal controversy arose from a familial succession dispute involving the estate of Maya Singh, who owned 67 kanals 4 marlas of land in Punjab. After his death in 1991, his nephew, Gurdial Singh (the appellant), propounded a registered Will dated 16.05.1991, claiming exclusive ownership of the property. Conversely, Jagir Kaur, widow of Maya Singh, and Gurpal Singh, allegedly their adopted son, contested the Will, asserting their lawful succession rights.

The Trial Court recognized Jagir Kaur as the lawful wife but rejected Gurpal Singh’s adoption claim, holding the Will genuine. The First Appellate Court affirmed this view. However, the High Court reversed these findings, noting that the Will’s silence on the lawful wife’s existence was a suspicious circumstance negating the free volition of the testator.

The Supreme Court’s intervention became necessary to examine whether such omission alone could invalidate the Will and whether the High Court had correctly interfered with the concurrent findings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Maya Singh owned significant agricultural land in Village Sathiala.

• He died on 10.11.1991.

• His widow, Jagir Kaur, claimed ownership rights, and mutation was entered in her name in 1992.

• Appellant Gurdial Singh propounded a registered Will dated 16.05.1991 in his favour, asserting Maya Singh’s prior marriage to one Joginder Kaur, who had predeceased him, thus denying Jagir Kaur’s marital status.

• Respondents filed a suit for declaration that Jagir Kaur was the lawful wife and Gurpal Singh their adopted son.

• The Trial Court upheld Jagir Kaur’s marital status but rejected the adoption claim, validating the Will in appellant’s favour.

• The First Appellate Court affirmed.

• The High Court reversed, holding the Will invalid due to suspicious omission of wife and absence of reasons for her disinheritance.

• Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether non-mention of the wife’s existence and reasons for her disinheritance in the Will constitutes a suspicious circumstance invalidating the Will?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The Will was duly executed, attested, and registered in compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

• Scribe (PW-2) and attesting witness (PW-3) corroborated execution before Sub-Registrar, proving due execution.

• Registration strengthens authenticity, as held in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1959 Supp. 1 SCR 426).

• Omission of Jagir Kaur’s name was immaterial since she was provided financial security through pension and monetary settlements.

• Courts must not invalidate a Will solely on disinheritance, as reiterated in Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (2020) 16 SCC 209.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

• Jagir Kaur was the lawful wife, living with Maya Singh till his death, supported by evidence.

• Omission of wife’s existence in the Will revealed undue influence, consistent with appellant’s strategy to deny her marital status.

• Will’s cryptic nature suggested appellant’s dominance rather than free volition of testator.

• Absence of evidence of strained relations undermined justification for disinheritance.

• Reliance was placed on Ram Piari v. Bhagwant (1993) 3 SCC 364 and Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369, emphasizing need to dispel suspicious circumstances.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – requirements for execution of unprivileged Wills.
ii. Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – necessity of examining at least one attesting witness.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Deprivation of natural heirs is not per se suspicious.

• However, complete omission of spouse’s existence in Will, without reason, constitutes suspicious circumstance.

• Courts must conduct cumulative assessment of surrounding facts.

• The omission reflected undue influence by propounder, not testator’s free will.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Last rites performed by male relatives, not widow, cannot imply strained relations in Hindu/Sikh families.

• Registered Wills are not immune from judicial scrutiny if suspicious circumstances exist.

c. Guidelines

• Courts must ensure propounder dispels suspicious circumstances.

• Proof of Will requires satisfaction of judicial conscience.

• Non-mention of lawful heirs must be explained satisfactorily.

• Scrutiny must consider cumulative effect of unusual features.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that silence on the lawful wife’s existence indicated undue influence. It underscored the principle that while Wills interfere with normal succession, omission of natural heirs without justification casts doubt on the free will of the testator. This judgment re-establishes the delicate balance between testamentary freedom and protection of rightful heirs from manipulative exclusion.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors. [1959 Supp. 1 SCR 426]
ii. Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 369
iii. Ram Piari v. Bhagwant & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 364
iv. Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose (1982) 1 SCC 20
v. PPK Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar (1995 Supp. 2 SCC 664)
vi. Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan (2014) 15 SCC 570
vii. Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (2020) 16 SCC 209
viii. Hames v. Hinkson, AIR 1946 PC 156

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63)
ii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68)