Madras High Court: Registration Of Will Can’t Be Considered As Proof; But Presumption Could Be Drawn About Its Genuinity https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/paneerselvam-v-amsavalli-will-registration-proof-genuinity-1602597 [28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: [28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: “

[28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: Madras High Court: Registration Of Will Can’t Be Considered As Proof; But Presumption Could Be Drawn About Its Genuinity https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/paneerselvam-v-amsavalli-will-registration-proof-genuinity-1602597
[28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: [28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: ”

Home  / Court Updates  / High Courts  / Madras High Court
Madras High Court: Registration Of Will Can’t Be Considered As Proof; But Presumption Could Be Drawn About Its Genuinity
The Madras High Court reiterated that when the Will is a registered document, it creates a presumption regarding genuineness thereof.
BySwasti Chaturvedi|28 Dec 2025 1:00 PM

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has explained that even though registration of a Will cannot be considered as proof of the Will, still a presumption could be drawn about the genuinity of the Will.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the Judgment of the Additional District Judge.

A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed, “Both DW-2 and DW-3 also stated that they had affixed the signatures under the instructions of the testator. We therefore hold that there has been compliance of the stipulations required under Section 63(c) of the Act. The witnesses had also spoken about the execution of the Will. … The additional factor to be considered is that the Will, Ex.B-1 is a registered Will. Even though registration of a Will cannot be considered as proof of the Will, still a presumption could be drawn about the genuinity of the Will.”

Also Read – Allegations In Disciplinary Proceedings Constitute Cognizable Offence: Madras High Court Orders FIR Against Two Cops
The Bench reiterated that when the Will is a registered document, it creates a presumption regarding genuineness thereof.

Advocate T.S. Baskaran represented the Appellants, while Advocates D. Baskar and R. Gururaj represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case
During the pendency of the Appeal, the First Appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as third to sixth Appellants. The First and Second Appellants were the brothers of the First and Second Respondents. The said Respondents had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was land and building measuring 3150 square feet.

Also Read – Madras High Court: Trial Courts Must Exercise Due Prudence; Direct Registration Of Case U/S 22 POCSO Act Against Adults Filing False Complaints
By Judgment, a preliminary decree was passed granting partition of the suit schedule properties. Questioning that Judgment and Preliminary decree, the Defendants had approached the High Court. It was a suit filed by two sisters against their two brothers seeking partition and separate possession of one property left behind by their father and claiming an undivided 1/4th share each in the said property. The said property was a residential house. They claimed that their father died intestate.

Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “In the instant case, though the evidence of DW-2 cannot be said to inspire confidence to the fullest extent, still the witness had denied the suggestion that the signature in Ex.B-1 was not that of Subramania Mudaliar. It must again be kept in mind that during the cross examination, two separate Wills namely Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-1 executed by Subramania Mudaliar were shown to the witness and they were asked to identify the signatures alternatively in both the Wills. Moreover nearly 8 years and above have crossed by the time, the witnesses were cross examined.”

Also Read – Process Of Law Must Not Be Misused To Target Individuals Who Have Fallen Out Of Favour With State Government: Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail To…
The Court was of the view that some leverage should be granted to the witnesses for not remembering minute details surrounding the execution of the Will.

“DW-3 had also spoken about the execution of the Will. DW-4 had very specifically stated that he had prepared the Will under the directions of Subramania Mudaliar”, it added.

The Court referred to the case of Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead
[28/12, 13:50] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has clarified that while registration of a Will doesn’t prove its validity, it does create a presumption about its genuineness. A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the registered Will, executed by Subramania Mudaliar, was valid, dismissing the appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment [1][2].

The court considered the testimony of witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) who attested the Will, and noted that the witnesses’ inability to recall minute details wasn’t sufficient to invalidate the Will, given the time elapsed. The court also referred to the case of Metpalli Lasum Bai, emphasizing that registration lends credibility to the Will’s genuineness.

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the requirements for a valid Will under Indian law?
[28/12, 13:50] Sekarreporter: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/paneerselvam-v-amsavalli-will-registration-proof-genuinity-1602597
[28/12, 13:50] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has ruled that registration of a Will doesn’t prove its validity, but creates a presumption about its genuineness. A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the registered Will, executed by Subramania Mudaliar, was valid.

The court considered the testimony of witnesses who attested the Will and noted that the witnesses’ inability to recall minute details wasn’t sufficient to invalidate the Will, given the time elapsed (8+ years). The respondents claimed their father died intestate, but the court found they approached the court with “unclean hands” by producing a Will allegedly executed by their father.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s judgment, and upheld the Will’s validity. Would you like to know more about Wills or property disputes in India? 😊