Posthumous Registration Of Will Is Permissible Under Registration Act, Not Indicative Of Fraud: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that posthumous registration of the Will is not indicative of fraud. The Registration Act permits such registration and does not prescribe any outer limit for registering it.

Justice Ramachandra D Huddar held thus while allowing the appeals filed by M D Revanna and others.

It said “In the present case, the Will bears the signature of the testator and is a registered document. The fact of a posthumous registration is legally valid, and does not, in itself, render the Will suspicious. The findings of the Trial Court that the Will is "dubious" for having been registered after the death, demonstrate a flawed understanding of statutory provisions and run counter to the established principles of testamentary law”.

"The learned Trial Court erred in treating the posthumous registration of the Will as indicative of fraud, when infact the Registration Act permits such registration and does not prescribe any outer limit for it. The Will ought to be tested in trial based on evidence, not presumed to be false at the stage of deciding the interlocutory applications," the court added. 

In a partition suit filed by the plaintiff K V Kalavathi, three interlocutory applications were filed before the trial court by the appellants (defendants in the suit), seeking to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with his fencing activity on the suit schedule property and I.A.Nos.4 and 5 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking injunctive reliefs against the appellants.

The plaintiff produced the photographs, school certificates, ration cards, obsequies invitation cards and other documents to show her relationship with late. Vishwanatha and to establish a prima facie case for claiming the relief so claimed in her application.

However, the appellant/defendant No.2 opposed these applications reiterating that the plaintiff was not a member of his family and was attempting to gain entry into the property based on fabricated claims. Reliance was placed on the registered Will, Revenue Records and other documents to assert his lawful possession and exclusive entitlement to the property.

By a common order dated 8-04-2025, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant-defendant's application and allowed those applications filed by the plaintiff, directing the parties to maintain status quo, while also granting liberty to the plaintiff to erect fencing.

The Trial Court expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will produced by the appellant, primarily on the ground that it had been registered several months after the death of the testator.

The appellants challenging the order contended that wrongly the trial court has interpreted Section 23 of the Registration Act and has wrongly concluded that, the Will is not a genuine document at the time of deciding the interlocutory application, which is not permissible in law. The appellant being the owner of the schedule property by virtue of the so-called Will executed by Vishwanatha, he is in possession of the schedule properties and now he wants to fence the schedule properties.

Findings:

The bench referring to the impugned order noted that Trial Court while disposing the aforesaid interim applications, in its reasoning, the Trial Court mainly relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Registration Act, which provides that, documents other than Wills must be presented for registration within four months from the date of execution.

It said, “The learned Judge, interpreting this provision in isolation and without reference to the exceptions carried out in the statute, held that, the Will was "suspicious" and appeared to be a "concocted" document solely because, it was registered on 15.02.2019, 6 months after the death of the testator, who is said to have died on 16.07.2018. This line of reasoning not only reflects a misunderstanding of statutory provisions but also overlooks long settled principles of testamentary law.”

Emphasising that the combined reading of Sections 23 and 27 of the Registration Act clearly establishes that Wills are not subject to the four months limitation period, applicable to other documents, and may be registered either before or after the death of the testator.

The statute, thus, acknowledges the optional and non compulsory nature of a Will registration and permits its registration at any point in time, without prejudice to its validity.

The court said “In the instant case, the Will was registered after the death of the testator as permitted under the above provisions. There is no statutory requirement that a Will must be registered within the lifetime of the testator. In fact, the registration of a Will is not even mandatory under Indian law.”

It also clarified, “What is material for a Will is its valid execution and attestation, as prescribed under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and not the timing of its registration.”

Noting that the trial Court, while considering prayer for temporary injunction, prematurely ventured into the question of genuineness of the Will, treating the date of registration as conclusive evidence of forgery or manipulation, the high court said, “This is impermissible at the stage of deciding the interlocutory applications, in which the interlocutory reliefs are claimed". 

It added that the veracity of the Will, especially a registered one, must be tested through evidence and cross-examination during trial, and cannot be prejudged solely on the ground of the date of registration.

Following which it held “This Court holds that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and proceeds on incorrect interpretation of the Registration Act, 1908. The registration of the Will dated 02.05.2018 after the death of Sri. K. Vishwanatha is permissible under Sections 23 and 27 of the Act, and in no way diminishes its probative value or authenticity unless otherwise disproved in trial by cogent evidence. In the present case, the Will dated 02.05.2018 is a registered document and the fact that it was registered after the death of the testator does not, in and of itself, render it invalid or suspicious.”

It added that the Trial Court's approach is internally inconsistent as  while acknowledging that the suit properties are subject to a partition claim and that both the parties are allegedly in joint possession, it still proceeded to grant exclusive interlocutory to one party, thereby creating an imbalance in the status quo.

It said that the trial court's the common order of 08.04.2025 suffers from legal infirmities and proceeds from a flawed appreciation of the law relating to registration of Wills.

Allowing the appeals the court said “I.A.No.3 filed by the appellant is allowed, subject to the condition that the fencing shall be for the limited purpose of preventing third party encroachment and shall not interfere with any existing possession or disturb the character of the land. I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed by the plaintiff stand dismissed. To safeguard the interest of both the parties, it is directed that both the sides shall maintain status quo in respect of possession, use and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit". 

Case Title: M D Devamma AND K V Kalavathi & Others

Appearance: Senior Advocate M.R.Rajagopal, for Advocate Thilakraj S.V for Appellants.

Advocate Keshav R. Agnihotri, for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

Click Here To Read/Download Order