By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 16 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
A will can be signed, witnessed, and registered, and still fail in court. Proof of due execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act establishes that the formalities were followed; it does not by itself establish that the document reflects the testator's genuine, free intention. Where circumstances around the will raise real doubt, the propounder, the person seeking to rely on the will, carries a further burden to dispel that doubt, and a string of recent Supreme Court rulings has sharpened exactly what counts as suspicious and what a propounder must actually do about it.
This guide sets out the doctrine as the Supreme Court has most recently applied it, what typically triggers it in practice, and what evidence tends to move a case one way or the other.
The difference between a validly executed will and a genuine one
The Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a line that trial courts sometimes blur: a finding that a will was validly executed, meaning the attesting witnesses saw the testator sign and the formal requirements of Section 63 were met, is not the same as a finding that the will is genuine. A will can clear the execution hurdle on the strength of attesting witness testimony and still be refused effect if the circumstances surrounding it remain unexplained and troubling.
This distinction is not a technicality. It determines where the real fight in a contested probate or caveat proceeding actually happens. Once execution is formally proved, a court does not stop there if suspicious circumstances have been pleaded and shown; it moves to the second, separate inquiry into whether those circumstances have been satisfactorily explained by the side propounding the will.
What counts as a suspicious circumstance
There is no closed list, but the recurring fact patterns are consistent across the reported cases. A will that departs sharply and without apparent reason from natural succession, cutting out children or close relatives in favour of a stranger or a more distant relation, draws scrutiny. So does a will executed shortly before death, particularly where the testator was old, ill, or illiterate at the time, and especially where the person who benefits most was also closely involved in arranging the execution.
Other recurring markers include an unexplained change from an earlier will, a signature that looks markedly different from the testator's known signature on other documents, the absence of any independent witness who was not connected to the principal beneficiary, and a propounder who was present at every stage of drafting and execution but cannot clearly explain why. None of these facts alone necessarily defeats a will. Taken together, they shift the practical burden onto the propounder to come forward with a credible explanation rather than resting on the attesting witnesses' formal testimony alone.
Sardari Lal v Bishan Dass: attestation proof is not enough
In Sardari Lal v Bishan Dass, reported as 2026 INSC 669, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan set aside a 1974 will executed by an illiterate testator, overturning a Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling that had accepted the will on the strength of attesting witness evidence. The Court held that examining the attesting witnesses and finding due execution proved is not sufficient where suspicious circumstances surround the will; the propounder must independently dispel those doubts, and a court cannot treat the attestation inquiry as closing the matter.
The ruling is significant for what it says about illiteracy specifically. Where a testator cannot read the document being signed, courts look harder for evidence that the contents were actually explained to the testator and genuinely understood, rather than simply accepting that a thumb impression or mark was affixed in the presence of witnesses. A propounder relying on an illiterate testator's will carries a correspondingly heavier practical burden to show the will was read over and explained.
Gurdial Singh and Lilian Coelho: the same principle applied again
In Gurdial Singh v Jagir Kaur, decided in July 2025, the Court declared a will invalid on account of suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, continuing the same analytical approach of separating due execution from genuineness. In Lilian Coelho v Myra Philomena Coelho, reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15 from January 2025, the Court reiterated that once execution is proved under Section 63 and Section 68, the burden shifts to the propounder to remove the suspicious circumstances, and that a court may decline to act upon even a formally, validly executed will if those circumstances remain unexplained.
The Lilian Coelho ruling did not finally decide the merits on the facts before it and left the parties to argue the underlying question before the Division Bench, which is a reminder that the doctrine is applied fact by fact rather than mechanically. A propounder cannot treat these rulings as a checklist to tick off; each case turns on whether the specific explanation offered actually accounts for the specific doubt raised.
What a propounder should do to meet the burden
The strongest answer to a suspicious circumstances challenge is usually contemporaneous evidence created at or near the time of execution: a doctor's note on the testator's mental state if health was in question, an independent witness with no connection to the principal beneficiary, or a video or detailed attestation note recording that the will was read out and explained before signature, particularly where the testator was elderly, unwell or illiterate.
Explaining a disinheritance in the will itself, briefly stating why a particular relative has been excluded or why the distribution departs from the usual pattern, is a simple drafting step that does a surprising amount of work later if the will is ever challenged, since it gives the propounder something concrete to point to rather than reconstructing the testator's reasoning years after death from witnesses whose memories have faded.
Where the testator's capacity is itself in question, because of age, illness, or medication affecting cognition, a drafting advocate should keep a contemporaneous note of the instructions actually given by the testator, in the testator's own words where possible, rather than relying purely on a clean final document that gives no sense of how the dispositions were actually arrived at. A propounder who can later produce such a note, together with an independent witness unconnected to the main beneficiary, is in a far stronger position than one relying solely on the formal attestation clause, which the Supreme Court's recent rulings make clear is not where this inquiry ends.
Frequently Asked Questions
If attesting witnesses confirm the signature is genuine, is that enough to defeat a challenge?
Not on its own. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that proof of due execution through attesting witness testimony establishes formal compliance, not genuineness. Where suspicious circumstances are pleaded and shown, the propounder must separately explain them; attestation evidence alone does not close that inquiry.
Does disinheriting a child automatically make a will suspicious?
No, disinheritance by itself is not suspicious; testators are free to distribute their property as they choose. It becomes a relevant factor when combined with other circumstances, such as the excluded relative having no apparent falling out with the testator, or the will being drafted with no explanation at a point when the testator's capacity was already in question.
Who has to prove suspicious circumstances exist, the challenger or the propounder?
The challenger has to raise and point to the circumstances that look suspicious on the facts of the case. Once that is done and execution is otherwise proved, the burden shifts to the propounder to actually explain those circumstances satisfactorily, rather than resting on the challenger to disprove the will's genuineness outright.
Does registration of a will prevent it from being challenged on this ground?
No. Registration under the Registration Act creates a record of execution and can support a presumption of regularity, but it does not immunise a will from the suspicious circumstances doctrine. Courts have set aside registered wills where the surrounding circumstances were not adequately explained by the propounder.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Sardari Lal v Bishan Dass, 2026 INSC 669
- Gurdial Singh v Jagir Kaur (Supreme Court, July 2025)
- Lilian Coelho v Myra Philomena Coelho, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15
- Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 59, 63 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act