Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between valid execution and genuineness of a Will: Lilian Coelho vs. Myra Philomena Coalho (2025)

Case Background

The case revolves around a petition filed by Myra Philomena Coalho (the respondent) for the grant of Letters of Administration (LoA) for the Will of her deceased mother, Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho, who passed away on November 24, 1985. The Will, dated July 7, 1982, purportedly bequeathed properties equally to her two sons, George and Reginald, and her daughter, Myra.

A caveat was filed by another son, Victor, who later died, and his widow continued the proceedings. The dispute centered on the validity and genuineness of the Will dated July 7, 1982. The matter was initially heard as a testamentary suit.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court initially found that while the Will was duly executed, it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the Single Judge dismissed the suit, denying the grant of LoA.

However, the Division Bench reversed this decision. It held that the Single Judge had correctly found the Will to be validly executed. The Division Bench opined that suspicious circumstances should be considered before determining the genuineness of the Will, not after. Therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of LoA.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the execution of unprivileged Wills. It states that a Will must be signed by the testator, or by some other person in their presence and by their direction, and the signature must be attested by two or more witnesses. The court noted that proving due execution under this section is necessary but not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the Will.
  “Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925”
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section specifies the requirements for proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested. It mandates that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove the execution, if there is an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. The court clarified that compliance with Section 68 is a prerequisite for proving due execution but does not by itself prove the genuineness of the Will.
  “Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”

Arguments

The appellants (the defendants in the original suit) argued that the learned Single Judge had correctly identified suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. They contended that the Division Bench erred in reversing the Single Judge’s decision by equating valid execution with genuineness.

The respondent (the plaintiff in the original suit) argued that the Division Bench was correct in holding that once the Will was found to be validly executed, the grant of LoA should follow. They argued that the suspicious circumstances were not sufficient to deny the LoA.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the learned Single Judge had arrived at a finding that the Will is genuine.
2. Whether the Division Bench was correct in holding that the learned Single Judge had made a specific finding regarding the genuineness of the Will.
3. Whether the cumulative effect of the findings returned by the learned Single Judge could be taken as a finding on the genuineness of the Will.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated:

The Supreme Court also analyzed how each authority was viewed:

• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The Court used this to emphasize that proving due execution is necessary but not sufficient to establish genuineness.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court used this to clarify that compliance with Section 68 is a prerequisite for proving due execution, but not proof of genuineness.
• Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors. [2021 11 SCC 209]: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that even after valid execution, suspicious circumstances must be addressed.
• Derek A.C. Lobo & Ors. v. Ulric M.A. Lobo (Dead) by LRS [2023 SCC OnLine 1893; 2023 INSC 1093]: The Court followed this case to emphasize that mere registration of a Will does not validate it.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the valid execution of a Will and its genuineness. The Court was concerned that the Division Bench had overlooked this distinction. The Court noted that the Single Judge had correctly identified suspicious circumstances, which needed to be addressed.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to ensure that the propounder of a Will must not only prove due execution but also remove any suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized in the following flowchart:

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

• “holding that a ‘Will is validly executed’ and a ‘Will is genuine’ cannot be said to be the same.”
• “even after holding that a Will is genuine, it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to hold that it is not worthy to act upon as being shrouded with suspicious circumstances when the propounder failed to remove such suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court.”
• “A reasoned judgment of a Single Judge cannot be interfered with without a deep consideration.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• Valid execution of a Will does not automatically mean it is genuine.
• Courts must consider suspicious circumstances even after finding a Will to be validly executed.
• The propounder of a Will must remove any suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court.
• Appellate courts should not reverse a Single Judge’s decision without deep consideration.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the proof of Wills and reinforces the importance of ensuring that Wills are not only validly executed but also free from suspicious circumstances. It is likely to be cited in future cases involving disputes over Wills.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court directed the High Court to consider the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a finding of valid execution of a Will does not automatically equate to a finding of genuineness. The Court clarified that the propounder must also remove any suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and provides clarity on the distinction between valid execution and genuineness of a Will.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho clarifies that a Will’s valid execution does not automatically establish its genuineness. The Court emphasized that even after a Will is proven to be validly executed, any suspicious circumstances must be addressed to the satisfaction of the court. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, reinforcing the need for a thorough evaluation of all aspects of a Will’s validity.