Introduction

A Will is the most unique and peculiar legal instrument, the reason being, it is the only Document which comes into operation after the demise of its author. Because of this peculiarity, the statutes i.e. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 place a rigorous standard of proof upon the Propounder of Will.

A Propounder of Will (“Propounder”) is a person who presents the will before the court of law to obtain Probate. As per Succession act Probate means the copy of will certified under the seal of a Court of competent jurisdiction with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator. In other words, in order to prove the validly of will the executor of will has to apply for probate before the competent Civil Court. Although, in the state of Madhya Pradesh, applying for probate is not mandatory, it is highly recommended as most government departments require the will to be probated in order to transfer/mutate a property.

As per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Will must be signed or affixed with the mark of Testator. Furthermore, a will has to be attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the Testator Sign the Will. As per Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to prove the genuineness of Will, at least one of the attesting witness must depose before the court of law in the Probate Proceedings.

Although the burden of proving the genuineness of Will lies with the Propounder, the burden becomes substantially heavy when the facts surroundings the execution of will are Suspicious. The Hon’ble Apex court through numerous Judgments has established the meaning of “Suspicious Circumstances” that can render even a registered will unenforceable.

Meaning of Suspicious Circumstance

The term “suspicious circumstances” is not expressly defined in the Indian Succession Act or the Evidence Act; it is entirely a judicial construct evolved by the Apex Court. In the context of proving a Will, “suspicion” does not refer to the unfounded doubt of a highly skeptical or overly cautious mind. Rather, it denotes a legitimate and real doubt arising in the mind of a reasonable person from the specific facts and context of the case. Therefore, there is no ironclad definition as to what constitutes suspicious circumstances. Rather than creating an exhaustive statutory list, the Apex Court has categorized specific fact patterns which can be deemed as suspicious depending upon the facts and circumstances qua execution of Will.

Tracing the meaning of Suspicious Circumstances through Judgments of Apex Court

1. Unnatural Exclusion of Legal Heirs

The purpose for which a person would execute a will would be to alter the natural order of inheritance, in other words a will mostly would alter/exclude or diminish the share of legal heirs. However, the courts have always drawn a clear distinction between deliberate and conscious exclusion of legal heirs by the testator and an Unnatural exclusion of Legal heirs usually supplemented by other suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will.

• Exclusion of Natural Heirs: The Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma [AIR1959SC443] noted that the total exclusion of natural heirs (such as grandchildren) in favor of the propounder’s own family members casts a heavy burden on the propounder to justify the disposition to the court’s satisfaction.

• Irrational Clauses: Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta [AIR2020SC2614] held that the unnatural exclusion of legal heirs, when combined with a Will that has irrational or unreasonable clauses, operates as a severe suspicious circumstance. In this dispute, a widow’s Will heavily favored her younger daughter while inexplicably excluding her other children. The Court ruled that when an unequal distribution is coupled with the major beneficiary’s active role in drafting the document, the exclusion ceases to be a mere exercise of free will and becomes an unnatural anomaly that invalidates the Will.

• The Exception: However mere exclusion of Legal Heirs will not automatically invalidate the Will. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment of Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors. (2026 INSC 521) explicitly ruled that the mere deprivation or exclusion of natural heirs, by itself, does not amount to a suspicious circumstance. The Bench reaffirmed that the absolute prerogative of testamentary freedom includes the right to make choices that might appear unfair to aggrieved, disappointed relatives.

Upon comparison of H. Venkatachala and Kavita Kanwar judgments with the Parvathi Nairthi judgment, it is apparent that if the exclusion of the immediate family is the only point of contention, and the Will is otherwise lawfully executed without proof of fraud or the beneficiary’s undue influence, the Will remains legally valid. An unnatural exclusion only becomes fatal to a probate claim when it is intrinsically linked with other unexplainable red flags (Propounder’s major role in preparation of will, Testator of Unsound State of Mind etc.), thereby triggering the doctrine of cumulative suspicion.

2. Doubtful Mental Capacity and Debility of Testator

Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act mandates that the testator shall be in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of will. Therefore, if facts surrounding the execution suggest the Testator was physically or mentally compromised the law presumes they may not have possessed the requisite animus-testandi (intention to make a testament) or the capacity to make a valid bequest.

• Physical Frailty as a Suspicion Trigger: The Supreme Court in the H. Venkatachala judgment (Supra) established that extreme physical debilitation directly casts a shadow of suspicion over the execution process. The testatrix was a 64 year-old woman suffering from paralysis, entirely bedridden, and physically incapable of basic self-care. The Court ruled that executing an elaborate Will under such debilitating conditions constitutes a severe suspicious circumstance. In such a scenario, the Propounder cannot rely solely on the mechanical proof of a signature, they must proactively dispel the suspicion by proving the Testator was mentally sound enough to grasp the document’s contents.

• Dependency and Situational Vulnerability: The Supreme Court in the Kavita Kanwar judgment (Supra) expanded the scope of this suspicion by linking physical health to situational vulnerability and undue influence. In this case, the elderly testatrix was heavily reliant on the major beneficiary (her daughter) for medical care and daily living. The Court noted that a Testator’s complete physical dependency on the very person who benefits most from the Will creates a highly suspicious circumstance regarding their mental independence and free will.

• Anomalies in Execution: Beyond medical illness, courts consider severe discrepancies in the physical act of signing as a related suspicious circumstance. For instance, if a highly educated Testator who routinely signs their name suddenly affixes a shaky thumb impression without a plausible medical explanation, the Court will treat the execution as inherently suspicious, demanding strict corroborative evidence from the Propounder.

3. Prominent role of Propounder/Beneficiary in Making and execution of will

A fundamental conflict of interest arises when the individual who stands to gain the most from a Will controls its procedural and substantive creation. While a beneficiary is not legally barred from being present during execution, a heavy suspicion is cast when they take a “leading” or “prominent” part in making the Will. This includes dictating instructions, preparing the draft, purchasing stamp paper, or independently securing the attesting witnesses.

• The Foundational Precedent: H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1959) (Supra): This judgment is the bedrock of Indian jurisprudence regarding the beneficiary’s role. The Supreme Court established that when a propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of a Will under which they receive a substantial benefit, it inherently excites the suspicion of the Court. In this specific case, the propounder’s involvement was deemed fatal because he exerted absolute control over the process: he was the sole person present when instructions were given, he personally prepared the draft, he dictated the contents to the scribe, and his own sons were the primary beneficiaries. The Court held that such unchecked control by a deeply interested party requires the propounder to prove, by clear and satisfactory evidence, that the Will expresses the true, uncoerced intent of the deceased.

• Secrecy and Isolation: Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta (2020) (Supra): Modern jurisprudence has expanded on this principle by linking the beneficiary’s active role with the deliberate isolation of the Testator. The Court observed that when a beneficiary takes charge of the execution process and simultaneously isolates the Testator from independent legal advice or interactions with other natural heirs, it heavily compounds the suspicion of manipulated consent.

4. Lack of Independent Attesting Witnesses

As per section 63 of the Indian Succession Act it is Mandatory for a Will to be attested by two or more witnesses. The reason behind such mandate is to have objective and independent parties verify the fact that testator possessed a sound state of mind and voluntarily executed the Will. Therefore, when the attesting witnesses lack independence (being close relatives/employed by the major beneficiary), the courts view their testimonies with profound scepticism and therefore can regard the same as Suspicious Circumstance.

• Relying Exclusively on Interested Witnesses: The Supreme Court in Purnima Devi and Ors. Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and Ors [AIR1962SC567] established that relying exclusively on interested witnesses, especially when independent options are available, constitutes a severe suspicious circumstance. In this dispute, the propounded Will bore the signatures of sixteen attesting witnesses, which included respectable, independent individuals such as a doctor and a village elder. However, the propounder deliberately chose to examine only highly interested witnesses, specifically his own priest (purohit), his close cousin, and his lawyer. The Court ruled that the failure to produce the available independent witnesses to dispel the surrounding suspicions rendered the execution highly doubtful, and the testimony of the interested witnesses alone was insufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court.

• Procurement by the beneficiary: The identity of the person who procures the witnesses is a critical factor in assessing suspicion. In the H. Venkatachala case (Supra), the propounder not only drafted the document but also actively orchestrated the presence of the attesting witnesses. The Court recognized that when a beneficiary who stands to gain a substantial inheritance is the one gathering the witnesses, it creates a legitimate fear that those witnesses are acting to protect the beneficiary’s interests rather than independently verifying the Testator’s free will.

• Exclusion of the Testator’s Close Aides: The Supreme Court in the Kavita Kanwar Vs Pamela Mehta case (Supra) held that the credibility of the execution is severely undermined when a beneficiary procures the attesting witnesses while the Testator’s own regular associates, neighbours, doctors, or trusted independent advisors are inexplicably excluded. In this matter, the major beneficiary handpicked the witnesses, and their subsequent contradictory and tailored testimonies regarding the exact sequence of the signing process deepened the suspicion, ultimately proving fatal to the Will.

Conclusion

An analysis of the abovementioned judgments makes it apparent that mere mechanical compliance to section 63 of Succession act and section 67 of BSA, 2023 will not suffice in satisfying the conscience of the courts. When the Last will and testament of the testator is shrouded by suspicious circumstances the burden on the propounder of the will is quite significant in order to obtain a probate. The courts evaluate multiple anomalies collectively rather than in isolation, to ascertain whether the document is the true product of a free and independent mind. Ultimately, the Apex Court’s approach strikes a critical balance: it fiercely protects the absolute right of a competent testator to freely dispose of their property, while simultaneously erecting robust evidentiary safeguards to shield estates from fraud, coercion, and undue influence.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance regarding Will/Probate cases, you may schedule a formal consultation with our firm.