More than 30-year-old Will fails in High Court: Why brothers lost claim to ancestral land

On January 29, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that merely because a Will is 30 years old it cannot be presumed that the said Will is genuine and duly executed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such a Will must be proved by attesting witnesses and must also satisfy other statutory provisions also.

The high court said: “Presumption regarding documents which are 30-years-old does not apply to Will which must be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act.”

The background facts which led to this judgement are that two brothers (nephews) filed a court case against their uncle seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction of the family’ ancestral farm land.


The brothers said before the court that their late grandfather Mahadev executed a Will on August 12, 1958 and it was registered on November 28, 1958 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh. This Will supposedly gave away Mahadev’s rights to this ancestral farm land to their father Ramavatar Ahir who is the son of Mahadev’s younger brother Jagdev Ahir.


Now Jagdev had two sons, Ramavatar and Ramkishun. Ramavatar’s wife is Sukharana and his sons are Rampyare and Shivshankar (the brothers).

After the death of Jagdev, Ramavatar, along with his sons Rampyare and Shivshankar (the brothers), started living with Mahadev and used to serve him and cultivate his land. Mahadev died on October 6, 1988. Thereafter, in accordance with Mahadev’s alleged Will, Ramavatar got his name mutated in the revenue records.

When Ramavatar died on July 25, 1998, ownersip of the land passed to his two sons Rampyare and Shivshankar, the plaintiffs. They got their names recorded in the revenue records.

By this time, Mahadev, Jagdev, and Ramavatar had all passed away. It is alleged that Ramkishun, defendant no. 1, who is a real uncle of Rampyare and Shivshankar (Ramavatar’s two sons) and had no right, in collusion with revenue officers and employees, got his name recorded in the land. along with that of Rampyare and Shivshankar, without their knowledge and consent.

Allegedly in 2007–08, defendant No.1 (Ramkishun), forcibly took possession of the land and was preparing to harvest the crops sown by him. That is when the brothers filed a court case.

The trial court dismissed the brothers’ (Rampyare and Shivshankar, sons of Ramavatar’s) case, holding that the Will produced by them was not proved in accordance with the legal requirements. Accordingly, the finding on Issue No. 1, that is whether the Will executed by Late Mahadev on August 12, 1958, is valid, was recorded as “Not proved.”

The brothers challenged the judgment and decree by filing a civil appeal before the appellate Court, but it was dismissed, upholding the trial court’s decision. Consequently, the brothers filed an appeal in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The brothers’ lawyer informed the high court that before 2007-08, the brothers had been in possession of the disputed land for over 40 years. He also argued that the grandfather (late Mahadev ) had executed a registered Will in favour of their father, Ram Awatar, which is now over 30-years old.

Additionally, the lawyer noted that all the witnesses who had attested the Will have since passed away and therefore, the due execution of the registered Will stands proved under the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Also read: SC dismisses property inheritance case as key witness disowns will, orders natural Hindu succession to apply after mother’s death

On January 29, 2026, the brothers lost the case and the title to the land which was based on this Will was also lost.

Also read: Witnesses to a Will turn hostile? How Hindu succession is decided then

Why did the brothers (plaintiff) lose this case?

Prof. (Dr.) Rahela Khorakiwala BITS Law School, said to ET Wealth Online that the brothers lost the case because they relied upon a Will which could not be proved as per the requirements of the law.

Khorakiwala says:

• In the absence of proving of a document (in this case, the will), the Court could not hold in favour of the plaintiffs (brothers).
• Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1928 requires that a will should be attested by two or more witnesses, who have seen the testator sign or affix their mark on the will.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires that an attesting witness should be able to prove execution of a document, especially a document that is required by law to be attested.
• In this case, the requirements of the law under the Indian Succession Act, 1928 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have both not been fulfilled. None of the attesting witnesses were alive on the date when the will had to be proved and therefore could not be present in court to attest the same.
• Neither were the plaintiffs able to prove the signature of any of these attesting witnesses.

Also read: Son challenges late father’s Will giving property to aunt and late grandmother; wins case in HC as court allows Will forgery probe to continue

Do the brothers (plaintiff) now also lose the title to the family's farmland?

Khorakiwala BITS Law School says that the brothers (plaintiffs) have lost the right to inheritance through the Will. However, they can still inherent the farmland through the laws of intestate succession as provided for under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is applicable in this case.

Khorakiwala says: "As per Section 8 and Schedule I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the brothers (plaintiffs) will be entitled to a share through the intestate succession calculations provided in this section and schedule."

Also read: Tenants sold property bought from landlord’s wife on the basis of a Will, son raised disputes against Will; Delhi HC stays property sale till final trial

Summary of the judgement

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the brother’s appeal holding that they had failed to prove that the alleged Will dated August 12, 1958 was authentic. The high court said that it can’t be presumed that the Will is valid Indian Evidence Act just because it is over 30 years old.

Also read: Brothers can’t rewrite father’s will after mother’s death, rules HC, preserves daughters’ share in ancestral property

The Supreme Court in the matter of M.B. Ramesh (dead) by LRs. Vs. K.M. Veeraje URS (dead) by LRs & Ors reported in 2013 (7) SCC 490, had held that the presumption regarding documents which are 30-years-old does not apply to Wills.

A Will has to be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read together with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court further held that merely because the Will is more than 30 years old, under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it can’t be presumed that it has been duly executed and attested by the witnesses .

However, in this case, the alleged Will’s witnesses were not examined. The scribe of the will, and both the attesting witnesses had since passed away. But two other witnesses to this will had supported the fact that Mahadev had bequeathed his property in favour of Ramavatar (the brothers’ father). However, both these witnesses also said that they did not personally witness the execution of the Will.

Therefore, the high court held that mere registration of the Will was not enough and needed to be mandatorily proved.

Also read: Half of the disputed ancestral land sold by relatives during pendency of court case; HC says buyer’s ownership will depend on final verdict

Chhattisgarh High Court analysis and discussion

Chhattisgarh High Court pronounced this judgement (2026:CGHC:5238) on January 29, 2026,

Will is not proved in accordance with the law as the witnesses have either passed away or did not personally see the Will

The high court said that in the present case, the testimony of Rampyare and Shivshankar is that their grandfather Mahadev executed a Will dated August 12, 1958 in favour of Ramavatar, the elder son of Mahadev’s younger brother Jagdev. He bequeathed his cow, she-goat, utensils, and all agricultural land.

The Will was registered at Manendragarh on November 28, 1958. The scribe of the Will, Tekchand Jain, and both the attesting witnesses, Rajdhar and Ramlakhan Singh, have since passed away. Rachhpal (P.W.-3) and Lalman (P.W.-4) also supported the fact that Mahadev bequeathed his property in favour of Ramavatar. However, both these witnesses said they did not personally see the execution of the Will.

The high court said: “The Will has not been proved by the plaintiff (brothers, Rampyare and Shivshankar) in accordance with the mandatory legal requirements.”

The high court said that the principal basis for claiming title over the land is stated to be a 30-year-old document, namely a Will from 1958.

The high court said: “However, the said Will has not been duly proved by the appellants through witnesses in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

Therefore, the high court said that merely on the ground that the will is a 30-year-old document, it cannot be presumed to have been duly executed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Rather, this will mandatorily needed to be proved by attesting witnesses in compliance with the aforesaid statutory provisions.

Case law cited: The Supreme Court in the matter of M.B. Ramesh (dead) by LRs. Vs. K.M. Veeraje URS (dead) by LRs & Ors reported in 2013 (7) SCC 490, held that the presumption regarding documents which are 30 years old does not apply to Wills.

A Will has to be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read together with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court further held that merely because the Will is more than 30 years old, no presumption can be drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that it was duly executed and attested by persons by whom it was purported to have been executed and attested.

Another case law cited: Ashutosh Samanta (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors., reported in (2023) 19 SCC 448

Since Will has not been proved, the title to the land claim also fails since it is based on this failed Will

The high court said that after considering the aforesaid facts and evidence, it is evident that the alleged Will has not been proved in accordance with law. The testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 merely state the factum of execution of the will, while P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 admittedly did not witness its execution.

The scribe and the witnesses who signed the Will are no longer alive, but no steps have been taken to vaildate the Will as required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act together with Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. Just registering the will does not eliminate the mandatory need for proof from attesting witnesses.

The high court pointed out that it is well established that the presumption mentioned in Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act for documents more than 30 years old does not apply to a will. A will must be proved in strict compliance with statutory provisions governing its execution and attestation.

The high court said: “A Will speaks only from the death of the testator and remains revocable during his lifetime; therefore, its genuineness cannot be presumed merely on account of its antiquity.”

The high court said that consequently, the Will cannot be held to be duly proved or legally valid, and the claim of title based solely thereon is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

No question of law raised by the brothers’ lawyer

The high court said that the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law.

Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.

In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellants/plaintiffs (brothers, Rampyare and Shivshankar) failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellants failed to show any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded.

The high court said that the questions sought to be raised in the Second Appeal relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent fact findings.

The high court said: “Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding.”

Case law cited: State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637

Chhattisgarh High Court judgement

The Chhattisgarh High Court said that the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants (brothers, Rampyare and Shivshankar) and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC.

The high court said: “These questions, in the court's view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 of the CPC. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein.”

Judgment: The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned First appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.