Unregistered Holographic Will With Minor Corrections Not Suspicious Circumstance If Testator's Signature Undisputed: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that minor corrections, interpolations, use of different ink and non-registration of a holographic Will cannot, by itself, constitute suspicious circumstances when the testator's handwriting and signature are undisputed and the document indicates that the testator consciously applied his mind while making the bequests. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384]It was contended that the testator was in the habit of registering documents with witnesses and thus he would not have left the will in question unregistered. To this a Division Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman while setting aside the trial court order observed:“Merely because earlier some documents have been executed, registered, the same cannot be put against the testator to contend that the will should have been registered by him. It was the intention of the testator to bequeath the properties and it was the choice of the testator as to whether the Will should be registered or not".The Bench held that where the handwriting and signature of the testator are undisputed, “some minor corrections, interpolations and some alterations” made by him in his own handwriting per se could not be termed as suspicious circumstance to dispute the Will. The Court added, “Merely because the page numbers are written in English and Tamil in different pages, that cannot be the suspicious circumstance when it was nobody's case that he was not having mental faculty at the relevant point of time including the plaintiff.”The present appeal was filed against the decree of a trial court which, while holding that the Will had been proved, rejected it on the ground that several circumstances surrounding the document were suspicious and consequently granted the plaintiff a share in the properties. The civil suit was filed by one of the daughters of the testator against his other children and other legal heirs. The appellant was the fourth defendant and a son of the testator. The plaintiff, who was not given any share in immovable property under the Will, had challenged its genuineness.The Court noted that the Will was a 12-page holographic document and that the testator had signed every page except the seventh page, on which he had made a correction and signed on both sides, in his own handwriting. The Court found that the testator made serious deliberations in allotting the properties and the Will indicated that he had taken into account properties and settlements that had already been made in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. “Therefore, from the very beginning to end, the testator has made serious deliberations in allotting the properties and in fact, the manner in which the Will containing 12 pages and every minute details have been included in his own handwriting and corrections made, clearly indicate that the testator had applied his mind to bequeath his properties taking note of earlier allotments, etc.,” the Court observed.Proof of WillOn the question of proof of the Will, the Court held that the requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 had been satisfied. The Court noted that the attesting witnesses had died and their signatures were identified by their respective children, and that the plaintiff had admitted that the handwriting and signature in the Will were those of her father.The Bench rejected the plaintiff's contention that the Will, when it was initially read over, did not contain signatures of the attesting witnesses and it was obtained later, and that she had received a copy of the Will without the attesting witnesses' signatures.However, the plaintiff had failed to produce the alleged copy before the Court, the Bench noted.“Therefore, her contention that the Will did not contain the signatures of the attesting witnesses at the relevant point of time is highly improbable,” the Court said.The Bench quoted its earlier ruling in Dr Lodd Surendardas vs. Lodd Narendradas (2009), “As far as the holograph Will is concerned, presumption is greater in favour of the genuineness of the Will and the entire Will is in handwriting of the testator and the over writings found in the Will can be attributed only to the age of the testator and definitely does not go against the genuineness of the Will.”“It is well settled that whenever suspicious circumstances exists in the Will, the same has to be dispelled by the propounder of the Will,” the Court added.The High Court held that the trial court had rejected the Will on irrelevant doubts and suspicious circumstances.BackgroundThe case arose from a partition suit instituted by the plaintiff, who was one of the children of Dr. S.G. Rajarathinam. Rajarathinam died intestate according to the plaintiff's case, leaving behind the plaintiff and four other children. The plaintiff claimed a one-fifth share in several properties.The fourth defendant, the appellant herein, however, relied upon a handwritten Will dated February 10, 1993, under which Rajarathinam had...

Unregistered Holographic Will With Minor Corrections Not Suspicious Circumstance If Testator's Signature Undisputed: Madras High Court

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

Unregistered Holographic Will With Minor Corrections Not Suspicious Circumstance If Testator's Signature Undisputed: Madras High Court

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers