18 July 2025 Legal Updates

EXCLUSION OF NATURAL HEIRS WITHOUT REASONS RAISES DOUBT ABOUT GENUINENESS OF WILL: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date:

• July 17, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Facts

Maya Singh owned 67 kanals 4 marlas of land in village Sathiala. He died on November 10, 1991. Gurdial Singh (Maya Singh’s nephew) produced a Will dated May 16, 1991, claiming Maya Singh bequeathed the entire property to him. Jagir Kaur contested, claiming she was Maya Singh's lawful wife and thus entitled to inheritance. The Will completely omitted any mention of Jagir Kaur's existence or reasons for disinheriting her.

Court Proceedings

• Trial Court: Upheld the Will, declared it genuine
• First Appellate Court: Confirmed Trial Court's decision
• High Court: Reversed lower courts' findings, declared the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances
• Supreme Court: Upheld High Court's judgment

Key Legal Issue

Whether non-mention of the wife's status and failure to provide reasons for her disinheritance in a Will constitutes a "suspicious circumstance" that invalidates the Will?

Supreme Court's Reasoning

1. Suspicious Circumstances Doctrine:

• When a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as genuine

2. Unusual Omission:

• The complete silence about Maya Singh's wife while she was living with him until his death was highly suspicious

3. Cumulative Assessment:

The Court considered all circumstances together, including:

• Jagir Kaur was residing with Maya Singh till his death
• No evidence of bitter relations between the couple
• Maya Singh had nominated her for pension benefits
• The Will's cryptic nature suggesting external influence

4. Free Disposing Mind:

• The omission suggested the Will reflected the appellant's intentions rather than the testator's free will

Key Legal Principles Established

• Proof of Wills: A Will must be proved not just by signature verification but by dispelling all suspicious circumstances
• Suspicious Circumstances: Must be "real, germane and valid" - not mere fantasies of a doubting mind
• Natural Heirs: While deprivation of natural heirs alone doesn't invalidate a Will, complete omission without reasons raises suspicion
• Judicial Conscience Test: In suspicious cases, the court must be satisfied that the Will represents the testator's free volition

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Will was invalid due to suspicious circumstances, and declared Jagir Kaur as the rightful owner of the property.

'EXCLUDING FEMALE HEIRS FROM INHERITANCE DISCRIMINATORY': SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRIBAL WOMEN EQUAL SUCCESSION RIGHTS AS MEN

(a) Case Title:

• Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 17, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Facts of the Case

The appellants were legal heirs of Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. They sought partition of ancestral property belonging to their maternal grandfather Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Dhaiya was one of six children (five sons and one daughter). The appellants claimed their mother (Dhaiya) was entitled to an equal share in the scheduled property. The case arose when defendants refused to partition the property in October 1992

Legal Issues

Whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in ancestral property?

Lower Courts' Decisions

• Trial Court (2008): Dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit. Secondly, the Hindu Succession Act doesn't apply to Scheduled Tribes. No evidence of tribal customs supporting female inheritance was produced.
• First Appellate Court (2009): Upheld trial court's decision
• High Court of Chhattisgarh (2022): Affirmed lower courts' judgments

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

1. Hindu Succession Act Exclusion:

Section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application. Hindu law has no application to the case.

2. Custom and Burden of Proof:

Lower courts wrongly assumed exclusionary custom (that daughters cannot inherit). The Court noted patriarchal predisposition in assuming women were excluded. Neither side proved any custom regarding inheritance.

3. Justice, Equity and Good Conscience:

The Court applied Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, Section 6. This principle applies when there's a void or absence of governing law. The 1875 Act's repeal in 2018 doesn't affect accrued rights (saving clause).

4. Constitutional Violation - Article 14:

Denying inheritance to women violates right to equality. There is no rational nexus for only males to inherit property. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on sex.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

• Equality is a dynamic concept that cannot be imprisoned within traditional limits
• Customs cannot remain stuck in time and deprive others of rights
• In absence of any proven custom, denying female heirs property rights violates constitutional equality

Final Judgment

Appeal Allowed. Appellant-plaintiffs (Dhaiya's legal heirs) are entitled to equal share in the property.

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS CONVICTION OF WOMAN FOR FIANCE'S MURDER; ALLOWS HER & AIDES TO SEEK GOVERNOR'S PARDON

(a) Case Title: 

• Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 14 July 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar 

Facts:

Shubha, a 20-year-old law student, was engaged to Girish (deceased) in November 2003, with marriage fixed for April 2004. Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her friend Arun Verma, who conspired with his cousin Dinesh and Venkatesh to murder Girish. On 3 December 2003, Shubha and Girish went for dinner. Later, Girish was fatally attacked with a steel rod by Venkatesh at an isolated spot while Shubha was present. 

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court: 

• Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy and murder beyond reasonable doubt? 
• Whether the eyewitness testimonies were reliable? 
• Whether the Call Detail Records (CDR) were admissible under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act? 
• Whether the recoveries of the weapon (steel rod) and scooter were legally established? 
• Whether the appellants deserved leniency considering the circumstances? 

Court’s Analysis:

1. Eyewitness Testimony:

• The Court discarded their testimonies due to unnatural conduct (e.g. an ex-serviceman, did not report the crime immediately). The prosecution also failed to examine other key witnesses (car occupants, Intel security officer), creating doubt on the reliability of their evidence. 

2. Motive: 

Shubha’s unwillingness to marry Girish was established through: 

• Witness (beautician): Shubha expressed her desire to escape the marriage. 
• Witness (friend): Confirmed Shubha’s dislike for Girish’s conservative lifestyle. 

3. Call Detail Records (CDR):

The Court upheld the admissibility of CDR under Section 65-B despite technical objections.  The Court found extensive communication between Shubha, Arun, Dinesh, and Venkatesh before and after the murder. There was also a sudden spike in calls/SMSes on the day of the murder, indicating conspiracy.  Silence on the part of the accused post-murder suggested guilt. 

4. Recovery of Weapon & Scooter: 

• The steel rod was recovered based on Venkatesh’s disclosure statement. 
• The scooter (M.O.12) was traced to Arun’s house. 

5. Conduct of Shubha:

• She deleted SMSes from her phone, indicating consciousness of guilt.  Her presence at the crime scene without injury raised suspicion. 

6. Plea for Leniency:  

• The Court acknowledged that Shubha was a young woman forced into marriage, but her actions led to an innocent man’s death. 

FINAL JUDGMENT:

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment. However, the Court allowed the appellants to seek pardon under Article 161 (Governor’s power to grant clemency).