My Legacy Box logo
(2006) 13 SCC 775Judgement 2006Appeal 2003

Shanti Devi v. Daropti Devi

Appellant
Shanti Devi (Daughter of Testator)
Respondents
Daropti Devi & Others (Daughter of Testator)
Bench
Hon’ble Justice Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ

Facts of the case

Smt. Budho Bai, the person who made the will, signed it on February 22, 1977, stating that her daughter (the appellant) would inherit her property while allegedly disowning her other daughter (the respondent). She passed away on April 20, 1980.

After her death, the appellant applied for mutation (refers to the process of updating her name as the owner of the property in government records, as it has now been inherited by her). However, the respondent opposed this and filed an injunction to stop the transfer, but the court dismissed her case as non-entertainable. She then filed another case asking the court to declare her rights over the property, but that too was dismissed.

The case then went to the High Court as an appeal, which ruled that the burden of proving whether the Will made was under suspicious circumstances is on the plaintiffs and not on the respondents. The High Court then sent the case back to the Trial Judge for further review. The appellant aggrieved by this decision, challenged it.

Issue before the court

  • Whether the High Court was correct in placing the burden of proof regarding the suspicious circumstances of the Will on the person claiming under the Will. ?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its focus on the legality of the Will but erred in remitting the case to the Trial Court and incorrectly assigning the burden of proof to the appellants. The Court opined that the appellants should not have been required to disprove the Will, as this burden lies with the respondent who challenges the validity of the Will. The proper procedure involves the trial court adducing evidence and then sending the case back to the High Court for a determination on merit.

Key takeaways

The Court criticized the High Court's decision to place the burden of proof on the appellants, noting that it is challenging for a party to disprove a Will. According to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and established judicial principles, the burden of proof in such cases rests on the respondent, who must provide evidence to support the claim of the Will's invalidity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Indian Evidence Act clearly defines the burden of proof, and the burden should not fall on those claiming under a Will.
Making a will and want it to hold?
Talk to a succession lawyer who has seen cases like this one.
Find an expert

Related case briefs

All case briefs

Frequently Asked Questions

About wills, and about how the community works.

Join the community

Updates from the experts and the community. No spam, promise.

A legal document that records how your assets should be distributed after your death, and who is responsible for carrying it out.

You can write one yourself, but most situations benefit from an expert reviewing it. Tell us your situation and we introduce you to one.

The testator (you), the beneficiaries, the executor who carries it out, and two witnesses.

Without one, the law decides who gets what. A will lets you decide, and spares your family the guesswork.

It depends on your assets and family. An estate planner in the community can tell you which fits your situation.

Register your interest, tell us your situation, and we introduce you to the lawyer, chartered accountant or estate planner who has handled it before. Online or in-person.

My Legacy Box logo
Oneg Solution Private Limited
Tala Telenga Bazar, Purighat, Cuttack, Odisha
STPI Building, OMR Service Road, Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
© 2026 My Legacy Box (formerly Oiconomos), operated by Oneg Solution Private Limited.
My Legacy Box is not a law firm and does not offer legal advisory. Materials and services available here do not substitute counsel from a legal practitioner. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counsellor.