In Indian succession law, a registered Will holds a distinctive evidentiary status. But a pertinent legal question often arises—can a registered Will be presumed to be genuine without requiring additional proof of execution and attestation? The recent Supreme Court judgment in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) & Ors. v. Metapalli Muthaiah (D) by LRs, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015, decided on 21 July 2025 (2025 INSC 879), sheds light on this matter and reaffirms several key principles under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Evidence Act, 1872 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Legal Framework: Execution and Proof of Will
Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Will must:
- Be signed by the testator.
- Be attested by two or more witnesses.
- Each witness must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark or received a personal acknowledgement from the testator.
Additionally, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 67 of BSA) mandates that at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the Will if it is challenged.
However, Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 119 of BSA) allows courts to presume the genuineness of certain documents based on circumstances—particularly if the document is registered and appears fair and regular on its face.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Metpalli Lasum Bai
The crux of the case revolved around the property rights in a 4-acre 16-gunta plot at Dasnapur village, allegedly bequeathed to Lasum Bai through a registered Will dated 24 July 1974. The dispute was between Lasum Bai (second wife of the deceased testator) and Muthaiah (son from the first wife).
Key Facts:
- The Will was registered, and the signature of the testator was admitted by the opposing party (Muthaiah).
- The Will not only benefited Lasum Bai but also gave a larger share to Muthaiah, indicating the absence of foul play.
- Muthaiah, despite initial objections, admitted in cross-examination that his father had made cultivation arrangements between him and Lasum Bai.
- The trial court ruled in favour of Lasum Bai, recognising the Will as genuine and granting her full title over the disputed property.
- The High Court, however, diluted her claim, granting only a 1/4th share, treating the land as joint family property and discounting the Will’s evidentiary value.
- The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s decree.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
1. Registered Will Carries a Presumption of Genuineness
The Court emphasised that a registered Will, unless proved otherwise, raises a presumption of its validity and genuineness. The registration process itself involves a level of scrutiny which lends credibility to the document.
“The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof.”
2. Burden of Proof Lies on the Objector
Once a Will is registered and the testator’s signature is admitted, the burden shifts to the person disputing the Will to prove that it was not executed validly or that suspicious circumstances exist.
“The burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence… to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged…”
In this case, Muthaiah admitted the signature of his father on the Will and also acknowledged possession by Lasum Bai, thus weakening his claims.
3. Absence of Suspicious Circumstances
The Will distributed the property in a balanced manner, granting a lion’s share to Muthaiah and a smaller share to Lasum Bai. This negated the suspicion of manipulation or coercion.
4. Consistent Conduct and Possession
Lasum Bai was in possession of the disputed land and had even sold parts of it through registered deeds, which went unchallenged for years. The Court observed that this conduct corroborated the Will’s legitimacy.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held
“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 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.
The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a lion’s share of the property to the defendant Muthaiah.”
Broader Legal Implications
A. Presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act (Now Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
The Court reiterated that registration is not conclusive proof, but it does raise a rebuttable presumption of due execution. This is especially strong when:
- The Will appears fair and valid on its face.
- The beneficiary was in possession.
- The objector has not offered concrete proof of fabrication or undue influence.
B. Registered Will v. Unregistered Family Settlements
Interestingly, the Court gave weight to an oral family arrangement, finding its substance mirrored in the registered Will. While oral arrangements for partition or settlement of immovable property are generally inadmissible unless registered (Section 17, Registration Act), corroborative oral evidence and conduct can lend them credibility.
Judicial Precedents on Registered Will and Burden of Proof
Several Supreme Court cases have earlier addressed similar issues:
1) Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, (1977) 1 SCC 369
- Suspicious circumstances must be cleared by the propounder.
- However, where the Will is rational and the testator’s signature is not in doubt, courts should lean towards validity.
2) H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443
- A Will can be registered, but even unregistered Wills can be valid if properly attested.
- Suspicion must be grave, cogent, and based on facts, not mere conjecture.
3) S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274
- Admitted signature significantly reduces the burden on the propounder.
- Disbelieving a registered Will requires positive evidence.
Conclusion
The judgment in Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Muthaiah clarifies a vital point in testamentary law: A registered Will, when coupled with admission of signature and consistent conduct, can be presumed genuine without requiring elaborate additional proof. This presumption stands unless the challenger discharges their burden to prove suspicious circumstances or procedural non-compliance under the Indian Succession Act.
In real-world implications, this decision strengthens the hands of rightful beneficiaries who face resistance from disgruntled heirs despite holding a registered Will. It also underscores the importance of ensuring registration and orderly execution of Wills, not only as a legal formality but as a protective shield against future disputes.
Key Takeaways
- Registration of a Will creates a rebuttable presumption of genuineness.
- Admission of the testator’s signature by opponents weakens their objection.
- Suspicious circumstances must be cogently proved by the challenger.
- Possession and long-unquestioned enjoyment of property support the Will’s validity.
- Registered Wills can outweigh claims based on joint family status, if not disproven.