Validity and Genuineness of Wills: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration in Coelho Estate Dispute

The case of Lilian Coelho & Ors. vs. Myra Philomena Coalho revolves around the testamentary dispute over the estate of Maria Francisca Coelho. The central issue is the validity and genuineness of a Will dated 07.07.1982 and whether it was executed free from suspicious circumstances. This legal battle progressed through multiple judicial levels, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Maria Francisca Coelho passed away on 24.11.1985. Her daughter, Myra Philomena Coalho, sought Letters of Administration (LoA) with the Will annexed, asserting that the Will distributed her estate equally among her two sons and herself. However, one of the sons, Victor, contested the Will, claiming it was shrouded in suspicious circumstances. Upon Victor’s passing, his widow continued the legal battle.

Initial Judgment by the Bombay High Court

The case first came before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who found that while the Will was executed following legal formalities, it carried suspicious circumstances that were not satisfactorily explained. As a result, the learned judge dismissed the suit, denying the grant of LoA to Myra Philomena Coalho.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-orders-fresh-hearing-in-andhra-pradesh-land-assignment-dispute/

Reversal by the Division Bench

Myra appealed to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which re-evaluated the evidence. The Division Bench overturned the decision, ruling that the Single Judge had already established the Will’s validity and that suspicious circumstances must be considered before—not after—concluding that a Will is genuine. Consequently, the Division Bench granted Myra’s request for LoA.

Supreme Court’s Review

Aggrieved by the Division Bench’s decision, the opposing party approached the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court focused on a crucial distinction between a Will being validly executed and a Will being genuine. The Court clarified that while a Will may be executed in compliance with the legal framework, it does not automatically render it free from suspicion. The propounder must also dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

• “Holding that a ‘Will is validly executed’ and a ‘Will is genuine’ cannot be said to be the same.”
• “If a Will is found not validly executed due to procedural non-compliance, there is no need to consider suspicious circumstances. However, if it is validly executed, the Court must still examine whether it is free from suspicious circumstances.”
• “Even after a Will is deemed genuine, if suspicious circumstances remain unexplained, the Court has the discretion to refuse to act upon it.”

The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench failed to establish whether the Single Judge had definitively ruled on the Will’s genuineness. It further criticized the Division Bench for presuming that findings on execution equated to a determination of genuineness.

Final Verdict: Remand for Fresh Consideration

Given these concerns, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s ruling and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench must now thoroughly examine whether the findings of the Single Judge amount to a definitive conclusion on the Will’s genuineness and whether the suspicious circumstances raised have been satisfactorily addressed.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-maxim-indias-ownership-in-karnataka-land-dispute/

The Supreme Court emphasized that it was not making any observations on the merits of the case and directed the High Court to expedite the reconsideration process within six months. It also instructed the registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Bombay High Court for further action.

Conclusion

The ruling highlights the judicial caution exercised in testamentary matters. The case underscores that proving a Will’s execution does not automatically establish its authenticity. Courts must also be satisfied that it is free from coercion, fraud, or undue influence. With the Supreme Court’s intervention, the Bombay High Court now bears the responsibility of ensuring a fair and thorough review of the case.

Petitioner Name: Lilian Coelho & Ors..
Respondent Name: Myra Philomena Coalho.
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Place Of Incident: Bombay.
Judgment Date: 02-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: lilian-coelho-&-ors.-vs-myra-philomena-coalh-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-01-2025.pdf