Excluding Heirs in a Will Without Explanation: Suspicious or Valid?

A Will is a legal declaration by which a person, known as the testator, expresses their wishes regarding the distribution of their property after death. The execution of a Will is an exercise of testamentary freedom—allowing an individual to bequeath property according to personal choice. However, when a Will conspicuously excludes natural heirs without justification, it raises suspicion. Indian courts have consistently held that while exclusion alone does not invalidate a Will, failure to explain such exclusion, especially of close relations like a spouse, may cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the testament.

The 2025 Supreme Court decision in Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) & Anr. (2025 INSC 866) brings this issue to the forefront, reiterating key principles that govern the validity of Wills and the weight of “suspicious circumstances.”

Background of the Case

Maya Singh, the testator, owned land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas in the village of Sathiala, Punjab. He passed away on 10 November 1991. A Will dated 16 May 1991, allegedly executed by Maya Singh, bequeathed all his property to his nephew Gurdial Singh (the appellant). This Will made no mention of Maya Singh’s wife, Jagir Kaur (1st respondent), or the reason for her disinheritance.

Soon after Maya Singh’s death, the land was mutated in favour of Jagir Kaur. In response, Gurdial Singh filed a suit claiming ownership of the land based on the Will. Jagir Kaur contested the Will, asserting her lawful status as Maya Singh’s widow and challenging the Will’s validity.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the Will as genuine. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the findings, holding the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances—primarily the unexplained exclusion of the testator’s wife.

Issue

“Whether the non-mention of the testator’s wife and the lack of justification for her disinheritance in the Will is a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate the Will?”

This question required balancing the sanctity of testamentary freedom with legal safeguards against fraud and undue influence.

Legal Framework on Proof of Wills

A Will, like any other document, must be proved under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically:

• Section 63, Succession Act mandates attestation by two or more witnesses.
• Section 68, Indian Evidence Act (Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) requires at least one attesting witness to testify.
  

Suspicious Circumstances and Exclusion of Heirs

Suspicious circumstances may include:

• Absence of natural heirs in the Will
• Lack of explanation for disinheritance
• Active role of the beneficiary in preparing the Will
• Mental weakness or infirmity of the testator

The Supreme Court clarified in Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose [(1982) 1 SCC 20] that every unusual feature is not a suspicious circumstance. But “complete silence” regarding close relations—like a spouse—can indeed raise doubts.

Court’s Analysis in Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur

Findings of Lower Courts

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the Will’s validity. They held:

• Mere disinheritance of a legal heir is not per se suspicious.
• The Will was registered and duly attested.
• Jagir Kaur did not challenge the signatures or present any alternative Will.
• She was drawing Maya Singh’s pension and had received other monetary benefits.

Reversal by the High Court

The High Court, however, found that:

• The Will did not mention Jagir Kaur at all, nor the reason for excluding her.
• There was no indication of strained relations between Maya Singh and Jagir Kaur.
• The exclusion pointed to undue influence, possibly by Gurdial Singh.

This rationale was consistent with the legal principle that a Will should express the true and voluntary intent of the testator, particularly when it involves excluding natural heirs.

Supreme Court’s Verdict: Exclusion Without Reason is Suspicious

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment. It held that:

1. Testamentary Freedom is Not Absolute: While a testator may choose to exclude heirs, such choice must be clearly explained, particularly when excluding a spouse.
2. Will Appears to Be Propounder-Driven: The Will lacked any mention of Maya Singh’s wife or reasons for her exclusion. It was cryptic and disproportionately favoured the appellant—who had even disputed Jagir Kaur’s marital status.
3. Conduct of the Parties is Relevant: Evidence revealed that Jagir Kaur lived with Maya Singh until his death. Her exclusion lacked any justification in the Will. Furthermore, the Trial Court erred in treating the fact that she did not perform last rites as proof of estrangement. The Court clarified that male members typically perform such rites in Hindu/Sikh customs.
4. Cumulative Assessment of Circumstances: The Court emphasised that suspicious circumstances must be assessed holistically. In this case, the exclusion of the wife, challenge to her status, and lack of rationale cumulatively pointed to undue influence by the appellant.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered the judgment, emphasising:

“What boils down from this discussion is that suspicious circumstance i.e. non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the Will ought not to be examined in insolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case……

…….A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Mere Registration is Not Enough: A registered Will that is formally valid may still be invalidated if suspicious circumstances are not addressed.
2. Exclusion of Natural Heirs Raises Red Flags: Disinheritance must be supported by plausible reasons. The absence of explanation can cast doubt on the testator’s mental state or freedom.
3. Courts Prioritise the Free Will of the Testator: Any indication that the Will reflects the will of the beneficiary, not the testator, will lead to invalidation.
4. Onus Lies on the Propounder:

The person who benefits from the Will must satisfy the court that:

• The Will was validly executed.
• The testator was of sound mind.
• There was no undue influence.
• All suspicious circumstances have been satisfactorily explained.

Comparative Jurisprudence

In Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram [(2020) 16 SCC 209], the Supreme Court upheld a Will despite disinheritance, but only because the wife admitted that she had been ousted by her husband. That case was distinguishable from Gurdial Singh because the disinherited heir had accepted her estranged status.

Similarly, in Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan [(2014) 15 SCC 570], the Court observed that “unusual features” must be cumulatively considered, not in isolation.

Conclusion

The case of Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur marks an important reaffirmation of the law regarding suspicious circumstances in the execution of Wills. Testamentary freedom, though sacrosanct, must yield to the foundational requirement of free and informed consent.

Exclusion of heirs, especially without reasons, is a red flag that courts cannot ignore. The judicial conscience must be satisfied that the Will was executed voluntarily and without manipulation.

In a society like India where family ties are strong, excluding a spouse from a Will—without even acknowledging her existence—raises powerful inferences. This judgment rightly restores balance by ensuring that Wills are not used as tools to deny rightful heirs through subterfuge.