Derek A C Lobo & Ors. vs. Ulric M A Lobo (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
Background
Two sons of the late Cecelia Lobo, named as joint executors of her 1992 Will, sought probate, but some of her other children disputed the Will's genuineness. The trial court, after examining witnesses including an attesting witness, held the Will was validly executed and granted probate; however, on appeal by one son (defendant no. 5), the Karnataka High Court reversed this, holding the Will was "shrouded in suspicious circumstances", citing the testatrix's arthritis and hospitalization, the beneficiaries' prominent role in getting the Will made, unexplained disinheritance of some children, non-examination of the drafting advocate, and property sales by the plaintiffs before probate was granted.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that once a Will's execution is proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act (which happened here, undisputedly, through an attesting witness), the burden shifts to whoever alleges suspicious circumstances to concretely establish them: vague doubts or generalized suspicion are not enough. Examining each circumstance the High Court relied on, the Court found: the testatrix was literate, educated, and an active public figure (a former municipal councillor and social worker) who was shown reading the Will before signing it, so her arthritis did not support an inference she didn't understand its contents; mere presence of beneficiaries during execution does not by itself prove undue influence; failure to examine the drafting advocate is not a legal requirement when an attesting witness has already proved the Will; and unequal distribution among children is not inherently suspicious since altering the natural line of succession is the very purpose of making a Will. The Court also noted the challenging defendant had inconsistently claimed elsewhere that the testatrix later revoked this very Will in a sound state of mind, undermining his own claim that she lacked capacity to make it in the first place. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's decree granting probate, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A Will that is properly proved through an attesting witness cannot be struck down on vague or generic "suspicion". Anyone challenging a Will must point to specific, well-founded suspicious circumstances (not mere assumptions about a testator's health or unequal treatment of heirs) before the burden shifts back to the person defending the Will.