High Court’s Ruling on Invalid Will Is Set Aside; Testamentary Succession Restored with Payment Directions
A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by C.P. Francis challenging the Kerala High Court’s allowance of a second appeal that applied Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act to declare a joint will void and open succession to intestacy. The primary questions were whether the High Court lawfully framed an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) of the CPC and whether Section 67 was attracted to defeat the proved will.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned High Court judgment. The Court held that the High Court erred in framing and answering an additional substantial question of law without recording reasons and without adequate pleading or evidence on the specific ground under Section 67. It restored the findings of the trial and first appellate courts that the joint will dated 27.01.2003 was validly executed and that the testators had testamentary capacity. The Court observed that the High Court’s reliance on Section 67 created “an entirely new case” not supported by pleadings and evidence and thereby altered the parties’ contested issues. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Bench further stressed that “the wish of a testator as expressed through a duly proved will is upheld by the Court, but not open up succession contrary to the arrangement made by the testator.”
Background: The dispute arose from two properties in Elamkulam village which CR Pius and Philomina Pius owned. Philomina had earlier executed a settlement deed in 1999 in favour of one child; in 2003 both spouses executed a registered joint will bequeathing the remaining schedule properties to C.P. Francis (the appellant) subject to specified monetary legacies to other children. After the parents’ deaths (2004 and 2008), respondents (other children) sued for partition and alleged the will was invalid due to fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The trial court found the will valid, the first appellate court affirmed, and the High Court allowed the second appeal by applying Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act on the basis that an attesting witness was related to beneficiaries, thereby declaring the testamentary succession void.
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 100(5) CPC and consistent precedents requiring that any additional substantial question be grounded in pleadings and reasons be recorded; the Court found those requirements unmet. It noted that the plaintiffs’ pleaded case primarily challenged testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances, not the statutory incapacity under Section 67. The Court reinstated the proved testamentary disposition but imposed an obligation on the appellant to compensate the other legatees: enhanced sums (ranging from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh depending on beneficiary) were to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% and a charge on the property would follow. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1071 Case Title: C.P. FRANCIS v. C.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mathai M. Paikaday (Senior Counsel); Mr. Akshay Sahay (Advocate)