On Thursday, 17 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India rejected the petition that was moved by the legal successors of Gurdial Singh and upheld the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had declared a Will done by Maya Singh in 1991 as invalid. The Court established the principle that the Will did not mention Maya Singh’s wife and did not give reasons for leaving her out, thus leaving a suspicious situation which rendered the will invalid.
Facts
Agricultural land owner Maya Singh, owning 67 kanals and 4 marlas of land in Punjab, passed away on 10 November 1991. Gurdial Singh, his nephew, succeeded property under a registered Will executed on 16 May 1991, without the mention of Maya Singh’s wife, Jagir Kaur.
Gurdial Singh filed a suit for ownership under the Will. Jagir Kaur, and Gurpal Singh (so-called adopted son), filed a counter-suit alleging she was Maya Singh’s lawful wife and Gurpal her adopted son. The Trial Court held in Gurdial Singh’s favor, confirmed the Will, and held Jagir Kaur to be Maya Singh’s wife but not Gurpal his adopted son. The First Appellate Court agreed.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Jagir Kaur appealed before the High Court, which overturned both the decisions of the lower courts and held the Will invalid on the basis of suspicious omission of the wife’s name and absence of any reason for omitting her.
Arguments
The Appellant’s Counsel argued:
• The Will was witnessed and established by witnesses (scribe and attesting witness).
• Monetary gains and pension had been accepted by the widow of Maya Singh.
• The failure to name the wife is no suspicious element.
The Respondent’s Counsel presented:
• Jagir Kaur was the lawful wife and cohabited with Maya Singh up to death.
• Clear exclusion of her name in the Will and denial of her marital status by Gurdial Singh presented manipulation.
•These were suspicious facts requiring invalidation of the Will.
Judgment
The Supreme Court rejected the appeals. It re-stated that whereas exclusion of a natural heir in itself makes no Will suspicious, a failure to provide for a rightful spouse without cause, particularly when no estrangement is established, raises serious suspicion.
The Court held that Gurdial Singh disowned, while making the Will, Jagir Kaur’s widowhood also, which was repudiated by Maya Singh’s conduct (e.g., preferring her for pension). Complete silence regarding her in the Will indicated that it was not the free will of the testator but was under the influence of the propounder.
The bench has cited Jaswant Kaur, Venkatachala Iyengar, Indu Bala Bose, and Leela Rajagopal cases, noting that courts have a duty to scrutinize Wills that are unnatural or unusual. The Court was assured that the suspiciousness of the Will had not been eradicated and therefore could not be legalized.
Analysis
This ruling makes a complete reiteration that the validity of a Will does not solely depend on procedural requirements (i.e., attestation and registration), but on whether the court is convinced of the volition and intent of the testator.
The Court reiterated that the exclusion of a natural heir such as a spouse in a Will, and especially where the testator had recognized her in life (through nominations and pensions), is suggestive of serious suspicions. The ruling also made it clear that common practices such as male members performing the last rites should not be construed to seal strained relations.
In affirming the decision of the High Court and refusing to regard sole due execution as decisive, the ruling strengthens undue influence protection and guarantees testamentary fairness in cases of inheritance.
Coram
Justice Sanjay Karol
Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Author
About the Author
