Presumption of Genuineness

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that a registered Will inherently carries a presumption of due execution and genuineness, and this presumption is strengthened when the signature is admitted and the Will benefits all parties involved. It states that the burden lies heavily on the person challenging the Will to disprove its validity. The High Court erred by overlooking this presumption and misapplying the burden of proof. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(d) (2025). 

What was the Background of Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(d) By Lrs. (2025) Case ? 

• The disputed agricultural land measuring 4 acres and 16 guntas was originally owned by one Metpalli Ramanna, who died intestate prior to 1949. 
• The total landed property owned by Metpalli Ramanna comprised 18 acres and 6 guntas spread across multiple survey numbers in different villages including Dasnapur, Mavala, and Savaragaon. 
• Upon Ramanna's death, the property devolved upon his legal heir, Metpalli Rajanna, who subsequently died in 1983. 
• Metpalli Rajanna had contracted two marriages: first with Narsamma, from which union two children were born - Muthaiah (defendant) and Rajamma (daughter); second with Lasum Bai (plaintiff), which marriage remained childless. 
• Narsamma predeceased Rajanna, and Rajamma also died intestate, leaving Muthaiah as the surviving male coparcener from the first marriage. 
• In anticipation of potential disputes between his second wife Lasum Bai and his son Muthaiah from the first marriage, Metpalli Rajanna executed a registered Will dated 24th July 1974. 
• Concurrently, an oral family settlement was allegedly made distributing the properties amongst the legal heirs in specific proportions. 
• Under the purported arrangement, Lasum Bai was granted rights over the northern portion of Survey No. 28 in Dasnapur village, whilst Muthaiah was allocated the southern portion. 
• Lasum Bai, claiming ownership under the registered Will and oral family settlement, sold 2 acres of her purported share to one Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. 
• Subsequently, she entered into an agreement dated 15th July, 1987, to sell the remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas to one Janardhan Reddy. 
• This proposed alienation triggered the dispute, with Muthaiah filing an injunction suit (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) to restrain the sale. 
• Muthaiah's case rested on the contention that the properties were ancestral joint family properties, and being the sole surviving coparcener, he was entitled to the entire estate. 
• He challenged the authenticity and legal efficacy of the registered Will, characterising it as a fabricated document. 
• Lasum Bai, in response, filed Original Suit No. 2 of 1991 seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule properties based on the registered Will and oral family arrangement. 
• The revenue entries (Khasra Pahunis) after Ramanna's death were recorded in the name of Rajanna, establishing prima facie evidence of ownership under the prevailing revenue laws in Andhra Pradesh. 
• Lasum Bai remained in actual physical possession of the northern portion of the disputed land and had been cultivating the same for a considerable period. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of due execution and genuineness, with the burden of proof lying heavily upon the party challenging the Will to establish improper execution or suspicious circumstances. 
• The Court noted that defendant Muthaiah's crucial admissions in cross-examination, acknowledging his father's signatures on the registered Will and the division of land between parties, corroborated the existence of both the Will and the oral family settlement. 
• The Will's genuineness was held to be beyond doubt as it conferred benefits not only upon Lasum Bai but also granted substantial rights to Muthaiah and his sister Rajamma, indicating fair distribution rather than fabrication. 
• The Court held that the oral family settlement was supported by compelling evidence, including exclusive possession by respective parties over their allocated portions, which acquired legal sanctity despite absence of formal documentation. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court manifestly erred in interfering with the well-reasoned trial court judgment, as its reduction of Lasum Bai's share to 1/4th was not supported by evidence on record. 
• The Court emphasised that Muthaiah's conduct of not challenging the earlier sale deed executed by Lasum Bai constituted acquiescence to her ownership rights and operated as estoppel against his claim of exclusive ownership. 
• The Court held that a duly registered Will constitutes valid testamentary disposition, and ancestral character of properties does not invalidate a testator's right to dispose of the same through a Will, provided it does not violate established principles of Hindu law. 

What is Section 78 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA),2023? 

• Section 78 of BSA deals with Presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies. 
• Previously it was cover under Section 78 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA). 
• Section 78(1) states that the court must presume that certain government documents are genuine when they:  
  • Purport to be certificates, certified copies, or other official documents. 
  • Are legally admissible as evidence of particular facts. 
  • Are certified by officers of the Central Government or State Government. 
  • Are substantially in the proper legal form and executed according to prescribed procedures. 
  • Section 78 (2) states that Presumption of Official Authority the court must also presume that any officer who appears to have signed or certified such documents held the official position they claim to have held at the time of signing.

Case Referred

• Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. (2014): 
  • The court established comprehensive principles for proving validity and execution of wills.