The Karnataka High Court has held that the registration of a will after the death of the testator is legally valid and does not by itself suggest fraud or suspicion. This ruling came in the context of appeals filed against an interim order passed by a trial court in a civil dispute, where the genuineness of a registered will was questioned because it was registered posthumously. The High Court clarified that under the Registration Act, there is no time limit prescribed for the registration of wills, unlike other documents that must be presented for registration within four months of execution. Wills are specifically excluded from this requirement, and they can be registered either during the lifetime of the testator or after their death.
The case arose from a partition suit in which the plaintiff sought relief against the defendants. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s applications and also filed their own interlocutory application. The dispute concerned a property that the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of, and she presented various documents such as photographs, school certificates, ration cards, and funeral invitations to prove her relationship with the deceased owner of the property. On the other hand, one of the defendants relied on a registered will and revenue records to assert exclusive ownership and possession of the disputed property.
The trial court, in its interim order, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It dismissed the defendant’s application and accepted the plaintiff’s plea to maintain status quo and allowed her to erect fencing around the property. The trial court expressed suspicion about the will, primarily because it had been registered about six months after the death of the testator. The deceased had passed away in July 2018, while the will was registered in February 2019. The court appeared to take the view that the delayed registration rendered the will doubtful.
Challenging this order, the defendants argued before the High Court that the trial court had misunderstood the provisions of the Registration Act. Specifically, they contended that the court erred in relying on Section 23 of the Act, which mandates the registration of documents other than wills within four months. They emphasized that wills are expressly excluded from this time limitation. The appellants maintained that the genuineness of a will cannot be questioned merely because it was registered after the testator’s death. They pointed out that the Registration Act does not prohibit posthumous registration of wills and that such registration is legally valid and recognized.
The High Court examined the provisions of the Registration Act and the Indian Succession Act. It observed that Sections 23 and 27 of the Registration Act impose a four-month limit for presenting documents for registration but expressly exclude wills from this requirement. Furthermore, it reiterated that under Indian law, the registration of a will is not mandatory at all. What is essential is that the will be executed and attested as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As long as these conditions are fulfilled, the will remains valid regardless of when it is registered.
The Court also noted that the trial court had jumped to conclusions about the validity of the will based solely on the date of registration, without considering that registration after the testator's death is permissible and not unusual. The High Court stressed that such findings should not be made at the interlocutory stage, where the matter is yet to be examined in full trial with the benefit of evidence and cross-examination. It ruled that the trial court had improperly assumed the will to be suspicious, which was not justified at this stage of the proceedings.
As a result, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the defendants. It set aside the trial court’s order that had rejected the defendants’ application and allowed the plaintiff to fence the property. The High Court granted the defendants’ application, allowing them to maintain fencing for the limited purpose of preventing third-party encroachment, but instructed that they must not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession or change the nature of the property. At the same time, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s interlocutory applications and directed both parties to maintain the existing status quo regarding possession, use, and enjoyment of the property until the final disposal of the suit.
Through this decision, the High Court clarified an important legal principle regarding the registration of wills. It affirmed that posthumous registration is legally valid and not a ground to presume the will’s invalidity. The ruling reinforces that the authenticity of a will must be determined based on evidence presented during trial, not on the timing of its registration. A registered will carries evidentiary value, and this value cannot be undermined merely because the registration occurred after the testator’s death.
The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between documents that are required to be registered within a stipulated time and those that are not. It reiterates that the law treats wills differently from other instruments in this regard. While delay in registration may raise questions in some cases, it is not in itself a conclusive indication of fraud or fabrication. The Court’s ruling thus serves to prevent erroneous assumptions based solely on procedural timelines and underscores the need for a substantive evaluation of evidence in matters concerning testamentary documents.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.