News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 78 | 2026:CGHC:5238

Bilaspur, January 29, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of two lower courts, holding that a will cannot be treated as valid merely because it is more than 30 years old unless it is proved in strict compliance with statutory requirements.

The ruling came in SA No. 183 of 2021, decided on January 29, 2026, by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. The appeal was filed by Rampyare and Shivshankar, who had sought declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction over agricultural land in village Paradol, district Koriya, on the basis of a registered will allegedly executed in 1958 by their grandfather Mahadev.

The appellants claimed that Mahadev had executed a registered will in favour of their father, Ramavatar, bequeathing all his agricultural land and movable assets. They argued that since the will was over 30 years old and had come from proper custody, its execution should be presumed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, especially as the scribe and attesting witnesses were no longer alive.

The defendants, including Ramkishun, the appellants’ uncle, denied the existence and validity of the will, asserting that the property was ancestral, had already been partitioned equally between Ramavatar and Ramkishun, and that the alleged will was forged and fabricated. They contended that Mahadev had no male heirs and had treated both nephews equally during his lifetime.

Both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, holding that the will was not proved in accordance with law. The courts found that none of the witnesses produced had actually witnessed the execution of the will, and no effort was made to prove it through permissible secondary modes under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act.

Before the High Court, the appellants relied on earlier judgments to argue that a presumption should apply to a registered will that is more than three decades old. However, the High Court categorically rejected this argument, relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs and Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi.

The Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act does not apply to wills. A will must be proved strictly in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which mandate examination of at least one attesting witness or compliance with alternative statutory procedures where witnesses are unavailable. Mere registration of a will or its antiquity does not dispense with these mandatory requirements.

Justice Guru further noted that a will takes effect only after the death of the testator and remains revocable during the testator’s lifetime, which is why its genuineness cannot be presumed solely based on age. Since the appellants failed to establish due execution and attestation of the will, their claim of title could not be sustained.

The Court also emphasized the limited scope of interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or contrary to law. Finding no substantial question of law involved, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower courts.

Case Reference : Second Appeal No. 183 of 2021: Rampyare, son of Ram Awatar Ahir, and another vs Ramkishun and another; appellants were represented by Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, and the State by Mr. Santosh Singh, Government Advocate.