Swarnalatha & Ors. vs Kalavathy & Ors.
Background
A mother and father each left a Will excluding their daughter, Kalavathy, from inheriting property (on the stated ground that she had already been sufficiently provided for), leaving their properties mainly to their two sons. After both parents died, the wife and children of the elder son (who had since also died) sought probate of both Wills, which the daughter and the surviving son contested by filing a partition suit and alleging the Wills were suspicious or fabricated. The trial (probate) court granted probate of both Wills, but the Madras High Court reversed this on appeal, citing several "suspicious circumstances" surrounding their execution.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined each of the ten "suspicious circumstances" listed by the High Court (such as the testatrix's undisclosed ailments, delay in seeking probate, and minor inconsistencies in witness testimony about registration timing) and found that none of them, individually or collectively, actually cast doubt on the Wills' genuineness. It noted that the father, in his own registered Will, had expressly referred to the mother's earlier Will, which by itself made fabrication highly unlikely. The Court held that suspicion in Will cases typically arises only where the testator's signature or mental capacity is genuinely in question, neither of which was disputed here, and that courts have no business questioning whether a Will's distribution was "fair" among children. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the probate court's grant of probate for both Wills was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A Will excluding an heir is not automatically "suspicious". Courts will only refuse probate where there is real doubt about the testator's signature or mental soundness, not merely because the distribution seems unequal or there are minor procedural inconsistencies in witness accounts.