Will, Mutation & Sale Deed Set Aside: MP High Court Upholds Heirs’ Rights Over Disputed Land (FA No. 833/2000 in MP High Court at Jabalpur)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in First Appeal No. 833/2000, decided on 15 January 2026, upheld a trial court decree that cancelled a disputed Will and the transactions based on it. The case involved a conflict between the legal heirs of a deceased landowner and persons claiming title through a Will and a subsequent sale deed.

Background of the dispute

The dispute related to agricultural land described as Arazi No. 1290, area 10 acres, situated at Village Jamuna, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. The land originally belonged to Buddhsen, who died on 09 January 1988. After his death, his wife and children claimed to be his rightful legal heirs and stated that they continued to remain in possession of the land.

According to the plaintiffs, they did not immediately apply for mutation after Buddhsen’s death. Later, when they approached the revenue authorities in September 1992, they discovered that the name of Ramesh Pratap Singh (Defendant No.1) had already been mutated in the revenue records on 30 May 1988. This mutation was allegedly done on the basis of a Will dated 18 September 1985 said to have been executed by Buddhsen.

The plaintiffs further alleged that after getting the mutation done, Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 29 February 1992 in favour of Defendant No.2, who then took possession of the land and began construction.

Because of these events, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the Will, the mutation order, and the sale deed were all null and void, and they also sought restoration of possession.

Defence taken by the appellants

Defendant No.1 denied wrongdoing and asserted that the Will dated 18.09.1985 was genuine. He claimed that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the Will and that they deliberately did not take steps for mutation earlier because they knew they had no rights after the Will. He also stated that in the mutation proceedings, publication was made and one of the plaintiffs had even appeared and given consent, showing awareness of the mutation.

Defendant No.2, the purchaser, supported the sale transaction and claimed that he had legally purchased the land through a registered sale deed and remained in possession thereafter.

Trial court decision

The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on 10 November 2000. It held the Will doubtful and granted the declarations and reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 then filed the present first appeal before the High Court.

What the High Court examined

The High Court focused on the core question: whether the Will (Ex.D-2) was proved in accordance with law and whether it could be relied upon to deprive the legal heirs of Buddhsen. The Court noted that Buddhsen’s ownership of the land and the plaintiffs being his legal heirs were not seriously in dispute. Therefore, since Defendant No.1 claimed title solely through a Will, the burden was on him to prove the Will beyond doubt.

Defendant No.1 relied upon witness testimony to establish execution and attestation of the Will. Witnesses such as Shriniwas Sharma and Mithila Prasad supported the defence and stated that Buddhsen signed the Will in their presence and that the Will was later verified by a notary.

However, the High Court did not find the surrounding circumstances natural or convincing. It observed that Buddhsen and Defendant No.1 belonged to different caste communities and were not close relatives. The Court found it difficult to accept that Buddhsen would deprive his wife and children of his property and give it entirely to a non-relative, particularly when the land in dispute appeared to be his only landholding.

The Court also examined a letter (Ex.D-1) relied upon by Defendant No.1 to support the story that Buddhsen’s family had opposed the Will. The High Court found the letter suspicious and observed that it appeared to have been created later to justify the Will, rather than being a genuine document written at the time.

Why the Will was treated as doubtful

The High Court highlighted several circumstances which, taken together, created serious doubt about the genuineness of Will:

• The Will attempted to transfer property away from the natural heirs without strong reasons.
• The stated justification in the Will appeared fabricated and suggested an attempt to grab property.
• The evidence about how the Will was prepared and witnessed appeared unnatural.
• The Will was dated 18.09.1985, but its verification date was 01.03.1987, adding to suspicion.

The Court also took note of the broader concern that if such documents were accepted without strict scrutiny, powerful and influential persons could exploit poor and helpless people to obtain their property through fabricated Wills.

Case law and legal approach

The appellants relied on Supreme Court decisions such as Daulat Ram v. Sodha and P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, arguing that suspicion must be real and a Will should not be rejected merely because the heirs are excluded.

However, the High Court held that those decisions did not help the appellants because in those cases the property was bequeathed within family members, whereas in the present case the Will benefited a non-relative in unusual circumstances.

The Court instead referred to Supreme Court rulings which emphasise that when a Will deprives the wife and children, it naturally creates suspicious circumstances, and such suspicion, if not properly explained, is enough to hold that the Will is not duly proved.

Final outcome

After considering the evidence and the nature of the Will, the High Court concluded that the trial court had rightly treated the Will as doubtful and unreliable. Since the mutation and the sale deed were based on the Will, they could not survive independently.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

---

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces a consistent legal principle: a Will must be proved with clarity and credibility, especially when it excludes natural heirs and benefits a non-relative. Where suspicious circumstances exist, the person relying on the Will must provide a convincing explanation. If the Will fails, all subsequent entries and transfers based on it, such as mutation and sale, also fall with it.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Does mutation prove ownership?

No. Mutation is mainly for revenue records. Ownership depends on valid title documents.

Can a Will be rejected even if witnesses support it?

Yes. If the Will appears suspicious and the circumstances are not properly explained, courts may reject it.

What happens to a sale deed if the Will fails?

If the seller’s title depends only on that Will, the sale deed can also become invalid.