Hon’ble Supreme Court: Will That Unjustifiably Disinherit Spouse May Be Legally Questionable
Citation: 2025 INSC 866
Introduction
In a landmark ruling dated 18 July 2025, the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur[1] invalidated a Will that excluded the testator’s legally wedded wife without any stated reason. The Court held that unexplained disinheritance of natural heirs—especially a spouse—constitutes a “suspicious circumstance” under testamentary law. Such suspicion must be dispelled with cogent evidence by the proponent, failing which the Will may be set aside.
Parties Involved
Appellant: Gurdial Singh (nephew of the deceased, Maya Singh)
Respondent: Jagir Kaur (widow of Maya Singh)
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose over a Will executed by Maya Singh in 1991, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate (67 kanals and 4 marlas of land) to his nephew, Gurdial Singh, while completely omitting his legally wedded wife, Jagir Kaur. The Will was registered and witnessed, but did not mention the existence of the wife or provide any rationale for her exclusion. Jagir Kaur challenged the Will, asserting her marital status and long-standing cohabitation with Maya Singh until his death. Both the trial court and High Court ruled in her favour, and the matter was escalated to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether the omission of a natural heir (the wife) without justification amounts to a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate a Will?
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
Gurdial Singh contended that the Will had been validly executed, attested, and registered in accordance with the law. He argued that the testator had consciously decided to leave out his wife, and the document should be upheld as an expression of his free will.
Respondent’s Arguments:
Jagir Kaur argued that the Will was the result of undue influence, as she had been living with her husband until his death and was nominated for his pension and benefits. The Will made no mention of her existence, and the absence of any stated reason for her exclusion from inheritance cast serious doubt on its genuineness.
Held
The Supreme Court held that:
- Although testamentary freedom allows a person to exclude heirs, the unexplained disinheritance of a spouse—without even acknowledging her existence—raises a serious and inherent suspicion.
- Registration and attestation of a Will are not sufficient by themselves to dispel such suspicion.
- The proponent must dispel all surrounding doubts with clear and convincing evidence.
- In this case, the Will appeared to be executed under undue influence, particularly given the close involvement of the beneficiary (nephew) in its execution.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the High Court’s ruling and declared the Will invalid.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reinforced the legal principle that testamentary autonomy must be balanced with fairness and reason. The silent exclusion of a legal heir—particularly a spouse—without justification undermines the credibility of the Will and invites judicial scrutiny.
Takeaway
This judgement reaffirms the following:
- Disinheritance of a spouse or natural heir without explanation may constitute a suspicious circumstance.
- Valid registration and attestation do not automatically validate a Will when foundational doubts persist.
- The burden of proof lies on the proponent to eliminate suspicion surrounding the Will’s execution.
- Courts will protect rightful claims of surviving spouses from exclusion driven by undue influence or mala fide intent.
[1] Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur 2025 INSC 866