High Court Rules Burden of Proof for a Will Rests on the Claimant

The Telangana High Court has issued a significant legal clarification regarding property disputes and inheritance laws, emphasizing that the burden of proof for the validity of a Will rests entirely upon the individual claiming rights through that document. In cases where a Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances, the court mandates that substantial and highly credible evidence is required to confirm its authenticity.

Judicial Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

This ruling came as a division bench, comprised of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, dismissed an appeal filed by Dr. Prabhuji Patange. The case involved a long-standing family conflict over a property located in Feelkhana, measuring 275 square yards. The appellant asserted that his father had executed a Will on July 10, 1964, which granted his mother life interest, followed by absolute ownership to him upon her passing.

According to the appellant, his father passed away in 1979, and his mother occupied the property until her death in 1999. The document in question was reportedly discovered in a sealed cover inside an almirah only after the mother had died. The High Court found this timeline highly questionable, noting it was difficult to believe such a critical legal document would remain unnoticed for nearly 35 years. Furthermore, the Will specifically named five daughters while omitting a sixth, who was a defendant in the proceedings, further casting doubt on its validity.

Establishing the Burden of Proof

The respondents, Amrutha and Sharada, argued that the document was fabricated, asserting that their father had no reason to create a Will in 1964 while in good health. The court observed that the appellant failed to produce reliable evidence regarding the signatures of the three alleged attesting witnesses. Testimony provided by the son of one witness was deemed insufficient to verify the execution of the Will.

Additionally, the High Court highlighted that the appellant did not seek a formal opinion from a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite the clear challenges to the document's authenticity. Given the existing strained relations and previous criminal allegations among the family members, the bench concluded that the trial court correctly analyzed the evidence. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the Will had not been legally proven.