Registered Will Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Burden Of Proof On Party Disputing Its Validity : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 21) reiterated that a registered 'Will' carries a presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party challenging the Will.

Holding so, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision judgment that had reduced the Appellant/Lasum Bai's share in the contested land, and upheld her absolute ownership based on a registered Will and an oral family arrangement.

The Court held that the High Court erred in its reasoning, emphasizing that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and this presumption stood reinforced in the present case, as the respondent, having admitted that the Will bore his father's signature, did not dispute its authenticity especially when the Will benefitted not only the appellant but also the respondent himself and his sister.

Background

The case centered on a 4-acre 16-gunta agricultural land situated in Andhra Pradesh, originally owned by one Metpalli Ramanna who passed away before 1949. The property later devolved upon his son, Metpalli Rajanna (Will Executor), who died in 1983. Rajanna had two children Muthaiah (Respondent) and Rajamma from his first marriage with Narsamma, and a second marriage with Lasum Bai (Appellant), who remained childless.

The dispute arose after Lasum Bai sought to assert her ownership over a portion of the land based on a registered Will dated 1974 executed by Rajanna, along with an oral family arrangement that allegedly divided the land between her and Rajanna's children from his first marriage. Muthaiah, Rajanna's son, contested her claim, asserting that the property was joint family property and that he, being the sole surviving coparcener, was entitled to the entire estate.

The trial court decreed the suit in Lusum Bai's favour upholding her ownership based on Will, however, the High Court reversed this ruling, limiting her share to 1/4th, and granting 3/4th to Muthaiah, treating the land as ancestral property governed by the Hindu Succession Act.

Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that since the Will was registered, it was carrying presumption of genuineness; moreover the admission of the Respondent/Muthaiah in court that the land was divided, with the Appellant/Lasum Bai cultivating the northern portion and him the southern portion, reinforced the oral settlement.

“The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions. The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will. In this background, the trial Court was right in holding that M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will dated 24th July, 1974 and so also the oral family settlement. We are of the view that the evidence available on record fortifies the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement which is countenanced by the factum of the possession of the suit schedule properties including the disputed property, which was admittedly with the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser i.e., Janardhan Reddy.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court restored the Trial Court judgment, thereby declaring the Appellant/Lasum Bai the absolute owner of the property.

Cause Title: METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS VERSUS METAPALLI MUTHAIH(D) BY LRS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, AOR