Will & Related Matters

In K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. [2025 INSC 1451], the Supreme Court ruled that gaps or omissions in a witness’s examination-in-chief can be fixed during their cross-examination.

In Tarachandra v Bhawarlal [2025 INSC 1485], the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal bar on carrying out mutation of land records on the basis of a will. Such mutation cannot be denied merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document.

A person who writes a will (the scribe) can also serve as one of the legally required attesting witnesses. However, for their signature to be valid as an attestation, they must sign with the express intention of witnessing the testator's signature, not merely to authenticate their role as the scribe. This principle was clarified by the Kerala High Court in Varghese C Philip Kutty v. Varghese Mathai [2025:KER:42170].

In Dr. K.S. Palanisami (Dead) v. Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam and others, [2017 (13) SCC 15], the Supreme Court defined a joint will as a single testamentary document executed by two or more testators.

A registered 'Will' carries a presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party challenging the Will, says the Suprem Court (SC) in Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) & Others v Metapalli Muthaih (d) by Legal Heirs [ 2025 INSC 879].

When no attesting witness can be found to prove the Will, the Propounder can prove it by proving that the attestation by at least one attesting witness is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in that person's handwriting, says the High Court of Kerala in Dr.K.R. Leela Devi v K.R. Rajaram [ 2025:KER:36448].