Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.
Background
A mother (the testatrix) executed a Will in 2003 leaving the bulk of her estate, a property in Delhi's Defence Colony, to her younger daughter, the appellant, who was also named executor, while making only limited and oddly-worded provisions for her widowed elder daughter and effectively excluding her son from any share in the immovable property. After the mother's death, the elder daughter and son contested the appellant's petition for probate (court approval of the Will), and both the trial court and the Delhi High Court refused to grant probate, citing a number of unexplained suspicious circumstances surrounding how the Will came to be made and signed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the refusal to grant probate, affirming that proving a Will requires not just formal compliance with the law (proper signing and attestation) but also removing any genuine suspicion that the document truly reflects the free and informed wishes of the person who made it. The Court catalogued multiple red flags here: the appellant, as the main beneficiary, played an active but evasively-described role in arranging the Will's execution; its terms unnaturally sidelined family members without real explanation; a provision requiring the appellant to build residential accommodation for her sister was vague to the point of being unworkable; attesting witnesses gave accounts that contradicted the appellant on key facts; and most damaging, the appellant's own shifting claims about an alleged "missing third page" of the Will, which she said contained the mother's further wishes but which was never produced, undermined the very document's claim to be the testatrix's complete and final word. Taken together, these unresolved doubts meant the appellant had failed to discharge her burden of dispelling suspicion, so the Will could not be admitted to probate; the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000.
Lesson Learnt
When a Will heavily favours the person who helped arrange its signing while excluding other natural heirs, courts will scrutinise it closely: the proponent of such a Will must clearly and consistently explain every unusual circumstance surrounding its making, because unexplained suspicion, not just a missing signature or witness, is enough to defeat a probate claim.