Introduction:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in S. Annapoorna (Died) & Others v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy & Others (Second Appeal No. 494 of 2016), delivered an important judgment clarifying the legal principles governing competing testamentary documents. Reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 107, the decision reiterates that where rival Wills are produced before the court, an unregistered Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances cannot override a duly proved registered Will. The Court further reaffirmed the settled principle that the latest valid testament executed by a testator governs succession, provided it is proved in accordance with law.

The dispute arose over ownership of a residential property situated at Kakinada, with rival claims being made by different branches of the family of late Pamarthi Subbayamma. The plaintiffs, who were the legal heirs of Subbayamma’s brother, claimed title over the property on the strength of a registered Will executed by the deceased in favour of her brother. On the other hand, the defendants, who were other relatives of the deceased, asserted that Subbayamma had subsequently executed an unregistered Will revoking the earlier testament and bequeathing the property in their favour.

The litigation was instituted as a suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and damages. Initially, the trial court dismissed the suit after accepting the defendants’ case. However, the first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs after holding that the registered Will had been validly proved and that the alleged subsequent unregistered Will was not free from suspicious circumstances.

Aggrieved by the appellate decree, the defendants approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They contended that the first appellate court had wrongly appreciated the evidence relating to the execution and validity of the rival Wills and had failed to properly consider the alleged later testament.

The appeal required the High Court to examine two fundamental principles of testamentary law. First, whether an unregistered Will allegedly executed after a registered Will could prevail despite not being satisfactorily proved. Secondly, whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, could interfere with concurrent factual findings relating to appreciation of evidence in the absence of any substantial question of law.

The judgment therefore assumes significance not merely because it resolves a family property dispute, but because it reinforces well-settled principles relating to proof of Wills, suspicious circumstances, evidentiary standards, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants, who were the defendants before the trial court, argued that the first appellate court had committed a serious error in reversing the judgment of the trial court. According to them, the deceased testatrix had executed a subsequent unregistered Will dated 29 December 1991, which represented her final intention regarding the disposition of her property. They contended that once a later Will is established, it automatically revokes any earlier testament irrespective of whether the earlier Will was registered.

The appellants submitted that registration of a Will is not mandatory under Indian law. Therefore, the mere fact that their Will was unregistered could not be a ground to reject its validity. They argued that the law recognizes both registered and unregistered Wills equally, provided the requirements relating to due execution and attestation under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are satisfied.

The defendants further contended that the appellate court had placed undue emphasis on the fact of registration while ignoring evidence supporting the execution of the later Will. They argued that the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the appellate court did not constitute genuine suspicious circumstances capable of discrediting the testament.

It was also argued that the appellate court had misread the oral evidence of attesting witnesses and had failed to appreciate the true intention of the deceased. According to the appellants, the findings recorded by the first appellate court were contrary to law and therefore required interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

The respondents, who were the original plaintiffs, supported the judgment of the first appellate court. They submitted that their claim was based upon a registered Will executed by Subbayamma on 31 August 1990 in favour of her brother. The respondents argued that the registered Will had been proved strictly in accordance with the requirements of law by examining the attesting witnesses and establishing the voluntary execution of the document.

The respondents further contended that the alleged subsequent unregistered Will relied upon by the defendants was surrounded by several suspicious circumstances. They pointed out that disputes already existed between the parties at the time of the alleged execution. They also highlighted the active participation of beneficiaries in the preparation and execution of the document, which required the propounders to remove every legitimate suspicion surrounding the testament.

According to the respondents, the defendants had failed to discharge the heavy burden cast upon a propounder of a suspicious Will. The evidence produced by them did not satisfactorly establish that the deceased had voluntarily executed the alleged later Will while being in a sound and disposing state of mind.

The respondents also submitted that the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at findings of fact after detailed consideration of both documentary and oral evidence. Since no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the High Court ought not to interfere with the appellate decree under Section 100 CPC.

The respondents therefore requested the dismissal of the second appeal and confirmation of the decree declaring their title over the suit schedule property.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court. The Court held that the plaintiffs had successfully proved the registered Will, whereas the defendants had failed to establish the authenticity and validity of the alleged subsequent unregistered Will.

The Court began by reiterating the settled principles governing proof of testamentary documents. It observed that although registration of a Will is not compulsory under Indian law, registration nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance supporting the genuineness of the document. When the testator personally appears before the Sub-Registrar for registration, there is a favourable presumption regarding due execution unless convincing evidence is produced to rebut such presumption.

The Court observed that the registered Will relied upon by the plaintiffs had been duly proved through competent evidence. The attesting witnesses established its execution, and no suspicious circumstances surrounded the testament. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased had voluntarily executed the Will while possessing testamentary capacity.

On the other hand, the Court found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the defendants’ alleged unregistered Will dated 29 December 1991. The existence of disputes between the parties, the active participation of beneficiaries in the execution process, inconsistencies in the evidence, and the inability of the defendants to dispel legitimate doubts significantly weakened the credibility of the document.

Justice Rao emphasized that where suspicious circumstances exist, the burden upon the propounder becomes considerably heavier. Mere proof of signatures or production of the document is insufficient. The propounder must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court by explaining every suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will.

The Court held that the defendants had failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the alleged unregistered Will could not be treated as having been proved in accordance with law.

Having rejected the defendants’ testament, the Court turned to the legal consequence arising from such failure. It reiterated the well-established doctrine that among multiple Wills executed by a testator, the latest valid Will governs succession. However, this principle applies only when the later testament itself is validly proved.

In the present case, since the alleged later Will was not proved, it could not revoke the earlier registered Will. As a result, the registered Will dated 31 August 1990 remained the last valid testament of the deceased and continued to govern succession to the property.

The Court specifically observed that the appearance of the testatrix before the Sub-Registrar during registration could not be doubted in the absence of any material disproving the execution of the registered Will. This circumstance further strengthened the plaintiffs’ case and supported the genuineness of the testament.

Justice Rao also examined the scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reiterated that a second appeal is maintainable only where a substantial question of law arises. Reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings is impermissible merely because another view may be possible.

The High Court observed that the first appellate court had thoroughly examined the oral and documentary evidence before reversing the findings of the trial court. Its conclusions were based upon proper appreciation of evidence and application of settled legal principles. No perversity, illegality, or substantial question of law could be demonstrated by the appellants.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no justification for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The findings recorded by the first appellate court were affirmed in their entirety.

The second appeal was consequently dismissed, and the decree declaring the plaintiffs’ title, possession, and entitlement to the suit schedule property based on the registered Will was upheld.

The judgment is an important reaffirmation of the law governing testamentary succession in India. It clarifies that while registration of a Will is not mandatory, a registered Will duly proved in accordance with law carries significant evidentiary value. It also reiterates that suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will cannot be ignored, and the burden to remove such doubts lies squarely upon the propounder. Most importantly, the decision reinforces that the principle of the “latest Will prevails” operates only where the subsequent testament is itself validly proved. An unproved or suspicious Will cannot displace an earlier valid testament, and courts will continue to uphold the genuine last expression of the testator’s intention.