Badrilal v. Suresh & Ors.
Background
Mangilal executed a Will in May 2009 leaving most of his land to his daughter Ramkanya and smaller shares to his nephew Suresh and Suresh's brothers; he died shortly after. Six days before his death, Suresh and Ramkanya had also signed a private, unregistered agreement about how to split the land, which bore Mangilal's thumb impression on one page, and after Mangilal's death, Ramkanya sold a larger piece of land than her Will-share to Badrilal, prompting Suresh to sue, claiming the sale was invalid as against his inherited share. The trial court and first appellate court both held the Will valid and the sale partly void, and the High Court dismissed Badrilal's second appeal, leading to this Supreme Court appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of three courts that the Will was duly proved and executed. It held that the private agreement could not amount to a legal "revocation" of the Will under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, since revocation requires a new Will, a formal written declaration of intent to revoke (executed like a Will), or physical destruction of the document: none of which occurred here, and Mangilal was not even a signing party to the agreement. Consequently, Ramkanya could only validly sell the portion of land she actually inherited under the Will, not the larger extent she purported to sell; the Court clarified the sale deed's validity accordingly and left the parties free to pursue a partition suit for the undivided land.
Lesson Learnt
A Will cannot be informally revoked by a private family agreement or an elder's thumb impression on someone else's document: the law requires a new Will, a formally executed revocation document, or physical destruction of the original Will.