Supreme Court Affirms Presumption of Validity for Registered Wills

Introduction:

In a landmark 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming the presumption of validity for registered wills and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect.In a landmark 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming the presumption of validity for registered wills and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect.In a landmark 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming the presumption of validity for registered wills and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect.Supreme Court Wills Ruling Upholds Presumption of Validity – In a landmark 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming the presumption of validity for registered wills and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect. The Supreme Court Wills Ruling Upholds Presumption of Validity by confirming that a registered instrument is presumed valid and that those challenging it must prove defect.This Supreme Court wills ruling in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025, addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming the presumption of validity for registered wills and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect.In Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others v. Metpalli Muthaiah[1], decided July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh. The testator executed a registered document in 1974 dividing his property among his second spouse and two children from a prior marriage. After conflicting rulings at trial and on appeal, the Court restored the trial decree in favor of the spouse, reaffirming that a registered instrument is presumed valid and that a challenger bears the burden of proving any defect.

Facts:

The land totalled 18 acres and 6 guntas in Dasnapur and Mavala villages. The original owner died intestate before 1949, and his son held title until his death in 1983. That son married twice, with two children from the first marriage and none from the second. In July 1974, he, his second spouse, and his two children agreed to divide the land into three shares. On July 24, 1974, he executed a registered document recording that division: the second spouse to receive 6 acres and 16 guntas (northern half of one plot), the son from the first marriage the corresponding southern half, and the daughter portions of other plots.

In August 1987, the second spouse sold two acres of her share by registered deed; no challenge followed. Later in 1987, the son obtained an interim order restraining further transfers but preserving the title issue. In 1991, the spouse sued for declaration of title and injunction. At trial, she relied on the 1974 document and arrangement; he identified his father’s signature and acknowledged her possession since 1987. The trial court found the document genuine, accepted evidence of arrangement and possession, and decreed title in her favor for 6¾ acres with injunction. On appeal, the high court treated the land as joint property, reduced her title to one‑fourth, and ordered partition of the remainder between the son and his sister.

Presumption of Validity for Registered Wills: Supreme Court Analysis:

Section 68 of the Evidence Act states that any document that is registered and executed in accordance with the law is presumed to be genuine and properly executed. That presumption is attached to a document when it is tendered in evidence. At that stage, the document producer’s presumption of valid execution must counter challenge with evidence of fraud (forgery), undue influence, or misdescription of contents. Section 17 of the Evidence Act regards admissions by a party as evidence counter to the maker. At trial, the son admitted that the signature on the 1974 writing was his father’s.

He also admitted that the spouse occupied her portion in accordance with the writing and that he had not contested the sale of two acres in 1987. Those admissions provided direct proof that the writing was executed by the testator and that its terms regarding division were acted on by the parties.

Possession in accordance with a writing and unchallenged transactions pursuant to its terms strengthen its validity. The spouse’s sale of two acres in 1987 by registered deed was not contested. The deed remained on record. That transaction, together with continued occupation, demonstrated that the parties acquiesced in the division recorded in the writing. The doctrine of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence prevented the son from later contradicting the writing after permitting transfers and occupation under its terms.

Succession law governs distribution when a person dies without a valid document disposing of property. When a valid instrument exists and disposes of property, succession rules yield to the instrument’s terms. The high court’s approach treated self acquired property as joint family property subject to intestate succession, without reconciling that approach with existence of a valid writing. That approach overlooked the legal effect of a writing under the Evidence Act.

Once the spouse produced the writing and the son admitted its execution and terms, the son bore the burden to produce evidence of forgery, undue influence, lack of capacity, or suspicious circumstances. He failed to do so. At no point did he present handwriting expert testimony, medical records, affidavits of witnesses disputing execution, or any documentary proof of defect. Without such evidence, the presumption of due execution and genuineness remained unrebutted.

The high court did not engage with the statutory presumption or the trial record of admissions and possession. It effectively required the spouse to prove distribution beyond the writing and arrangement. By treating the land as joint property and applying succession law, the high court displaced the writing’s effect. The high court’s reasoning inverted the burden of proof: it assumed defect in the writing unless the spouse proved otherwise, contrary to statutory scheme.

The son obtained an interim injunction in 1987 restraining further transfers “under the Will.” That order preserved title question for trial but did not adjudicate validity of the writing. It did not bar the spouse from pursuing declaration of title. The high court’s view that that order limited scope of trial evidence was incorrect. The trial court properly proceeded to determine title on merits.

The spouses at trial testified to an oral agreement preceding execution of the writing. Oral family arrangements are admissible when corroborated by a writing and possession. Here, the terms of the arrangement matched those of the registered writing. Possession in conformity with those terms supplied independent corroboration. The arrangement was not an afterthought; it formed the basis of execution of the writing.

The suit for declaration and injunction was filed after the interim injunction. The son’s interim order did not preclude subsequent suit on title. The trial court correctly held that the interim proceedings did not constitute a bar under lis alibi pendens or Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The high court’s conclusion to the contrary lacked support.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the writing dated July 24, 1974, being duly registered, attracted presumption of due execution and genuineness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The son’s admissions under Section 17 confirmed signature and terms. Possession and unchallenged transactions corroborated the writing’s effect. The burden to prove defect rested on the son, who failed to lead any evidence of forgery, undue influence, or incapacity.

The Court found that the high court erred by treating property as joint family estate subject to intestate succession and by reversing trial court decree without engaging statutory presumption and admissions. It held that succession law did not apply where a valid writing disposed of self‑acquired property. The interim injunction did not bar trial on merits. The oral arrangement, corroborated by writing and possession, further supported spouse’s claim. The Court set aside the high court judgment dated January 23, 2014, and restored the trial court decree of November 15, 1994. It declared title in favour of the spouse for 6 acres and 16 guntas as specified in the writing. The Court granted permanent injunction against respondent and heirs.

Conclusion:

This decision affirms that a registered writing disposing of property carries a statutory presumption of due execution and validity. Once the proponent produces the writing and the opponent admits execution and terms, the opponent must prove defect. Evidence of possession and dealings in conformity with the writing further reinforces validity. Courts must not override such a writing with succession law absent proof to rebut presumption. This ruling will serve as an important precedent for future cases involving registered wills.This Supreme Court Wills Ruling Upholds Presumption of Validity demonstrates that a registered writing disposing of property carries a statutory presumption of due execution and validity. Once the proponent produces the writing and the opponent admits execution and terms, the opponent must prove defect. Evidence of possession and dealings in conformity with the writing further reinforces validity. Courts must not override such a writing with succession law absent proof to rebut presumption. For more information about the Supreme Court of India and its landmark judgments, visit the official Supreme Court of India website. The Supreme Court Wills Ruling Upholds Presumption of Validity will serve as an important precedent for future cases involving registered wills.This decision affirms that a registered writing disposing of property carries a statutory presumption of due execution and validity. Once the proponent produces the writing and the opponent admits execution and terms, the opponent must prove defect. Evidence of possession and dealings in conformity with the writing further reinforces validity. Courts must not override such a writing with succession law absent proof to rebut presumption.

[1] Civil Appeal No(s). 5921 of 2015.