Jayasree v. Sindhu Ajayan

Will – Validity – Suspicious Circumstances – Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 61, 63, 105 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 – Burden of Proof – First Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction.

2025 KER 48450 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2259
High Court of Kerala
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Easwaran S.
RSA No. 1211 of 2018; 04.07.2025

The appellants challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the Trial Court’s dismissal of a suit and decreed it by finding suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will (Ext.B2). The High Court framed three questions of law: (1) whether the First Appellate Court could raise issues not pleaded, (2) whether disinheriting a legal heir constitutes a suspicious circumstance, and (3) whether the First Appellate Court erred in suo motu questioning the genuineness of the Will, which was admitted by the plaintiff and not challenged.

Held:

1. The First Appellate Court erred in raising issues without foundation in the pleadings, as the plaintiff admitted the Will’s execution and did not specifically challenge its genuineness.

2. Disinheriting a legal heir, by itself, does not constitute a suspicious circumstance, as the testator’s preference for one heir over another is not unnatural. The court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the testator’s intentions.

3. The First Appellate Court wrongly questioned the Will’s genuineness suo motu, as its execution was admitted, and no cancellation was sought. The defendants proved the Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examining an attesting witness.

4. The clause providing for the lapse of a legacy if the legatee predeceased the testator, as per Section 105 of the Succession Act, does not create a suspicious circumstance.

5. The plaintiff’s admission of the Will’s execution, coupled with the defendants’ proof, shifted the burden to the plaintiff to specifically plead and prove suspicious circumstances, which was not done.

Appeal Allowed: The judgment of the First Appellate Court was reversed, and the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit was restored. No order as to costs.

Cases Referred:

• Shivakumar v. Unknown

• Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Unknown

• Derek A.C. Lobo & Ors. v. Ulric M.A. Lobo (dead) by Lrs & Ors., 2023 SCC Online 18993

For Appellants : Adv. K.P. Sreekumar
For Respondent : Advs. Alexander Joseph, Akhilasree Bhaskaran, Antony Nikhil Remelo & Ajith Sunny