Law library
Explainer Verified source

What the Supreme Court has said about wills, 2024 to 2026

Between 2024 and 2026 the Supreme Court mostly restated settled rules on wills. A will is proved through at least one of its attesting witnesses if one is available, registering it can help but does not replace that proof, and the person relying on a will has to explain anything about it that looks

Between 2024 and 2026 the Supreme Court mostly restated settled rules on wills. A will is proved through at least one of its attesting witnesses if one is available, registering it can help but does not replace that proof, and the person relying on a will has to explain anything about it that looks suspicious. Leaving a family member out may not by itself be suspicious, but courts look for a reason, and a name in the land records does not make anyone the owner.

Which wills these judgments are about

Most of these judgments apply section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which sets how a will is signed and witnessed, together with the rule of evidence for documents the law requires to be attested. Section 63 governs the wills of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains (through Schedule III) and of Christians, Parsis, Jews and others. Part VI of the Act, the part on wills, does not apply to wills made by Muslims (section 58(1)). Their wills follow Muslim personal law, and the judgments on Muslim law are in their own section below. Most of the judgments do not say which community the family belonged to.

The judgments on proving a will applied section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, India's law of evidence since 1 July 2024, now sets out the same rule, including the exception that leaves wills out. Proceedings already pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the 1872 Act (section 170).

Some words used below. An attesting witness is one of the people who saw the will signed, or heard its maker confirm the signature, and then signed it as a witness. A scribe is the person who writes out a will. Suspicious circumstances are features of a will, or of how it was made, that make a court doubt it is the maker's free and informed choice. Cross-examination is the questioning of a witness by the other side. Two older judgments are included because the recent ones keep citing them: Meena Pradhan (2023) and Jitendra Singh (2021).

Proving a will

  • One attesting witness can prove the whole signing, but only by proving that both witnesses attested as section 63(c) requires. A witness who proves only his own signature falls short, and proving the maker's signature or thumb impression alone does not prove that the will was properly made unless the witnessing is proved too (Pazhanathal v. Alamathal, Supreme Court, 13 August 2026, 2026 INSC 860).
  • A scribe is not an attesting witness just because he wrote or signed the will. He counts as one only if he signed to bear witness to the maker's signing (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • If no attesting witness can be found, the will can instead be proved through the handwriting of one witness and of the maker. The Court called this fallback an exception, open only once it is proved that no attesting witness can be found; a general statement that the witnesses had died was not enough. Even then, proving the handwriting does not by itself show that the maker understood and freely made the will (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • Proving the signature and the attestation is only the first step. The person relying on the will must also satisfy the court that the maker signed of their own free will, knew what the will said and understood its effect, and must explain any suspicious circumstance (Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass, Supreme Court, 6 July 2026, 2026 INSC 669).
  • The person relying on the will must prove that it was properly made. A person who alleges fraud or undue influence must prove that, but if they do not, the will still has to be proved (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • The witness who is called must speak to the maker's signing and to the attestation by both witnesses. Where the other attesting witness has died, that means the maker's signing, his own attestation and the other witness's attestation. In that case, what the witness left out at first was supplied when the other side put it to him in cross-examination, and the Court held that those answers carried no less weight (K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph, Supreme Court, 17 December 2025, 2025 INSC 1451).
  • Calling at least one attesting witness is required by law. The High Court was wrong to treat it as needed only in disputes between heirs (Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand, Supreme Court, 1 September 2025, 2025 INSC 1059).
  • The ways a witness may attest under section 63(c) are alternatives: a witness who saw the maker sign or put a thumb mark need not also say he signed at the maker's direction. The words "in the presence and by the direction" matter where someone else signs for the maker, and each witness must still sign in the maker's presence (Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram, Supreme Court, 2 January 2025, 2025 INSC 18).
  • At least one attesting witness must be called, and his evidence must show that the will was signed and witnessed as section 63 requires. Not calling the scribe is not, in normal circumstances, a suspicious circumstance (Leela v. Muruganantham, Supreme Court, 2 January 2025, 2025 INSC 10).
  • The principles later benches keep applying: a will is proved to the satisfaction of a prudent mind, not with mathematical precision. At least one living attesting witness who can give evidence must be called, and should speak to the maker's signature and to each witness signing in the maker's presence. If that witness proves the signing, the others need not be called; if he does not, another available attesting witness must be called (Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, Supreme Court, 21 September 2023, 2023 INSC 847).

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • Choose two witnesses who will both watch you sign and then sign in your presence, and who are likely to be found years from now. Either of them may have to describe the whole signing, including the other witness signing.
  • The law does not require the two witnesses to be there at the same time (see the note "Witnesses to a will"). Even so, keep both in the room together for the whole signing, so that either one can speak to the other's signature.
  • If someone writes out or types your will, do not count them as a witness. Your two witnesses should be separate people who sign as witnesses.
  • Make sure the attestation clause, the paragraph the witnesses sign under, describes what actually happens on the day, and let the witnesses read it before they sign.

Registration: what it does and does not do

  • A registered will must still be proved through an attesting witness where one is alive, available and able to give evidence, because the evidence rule's exception for registered documents leaves wills out. Registration may support a will's genuineness, but it does not replace proof of the signing and the attestation (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • Registration of a will is optional. Registration done properly could have supported a presumption that the will was read over to its maker, or that he admitted signing it before the registering officer. In that case the maker's name in the officer's endorsement had been struck out and replaced without initials, so that benefit was lost (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • The mere fact that a will was registered does not make it valid. A registered will that had not been proved as section 63 and the evidence law require gave the person relying on it no title (Ramesh Chand, 2025).
  • In one 2025 case the Court said that because the will was registered, there was a presumption that it was genuine, so the son who disputed it had to show that it was not properly made or was doubtful. It said this where the son admitted that the signatures were his father's and that the widow held her share, the will gave him the largest share, and the trial court had accepted the will on the evidence. The judgment does not discuss section 63 or the attesting-witness rule (Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaih, Supreme Court, 21 July 2025, 2025 INSC 879).
  • Where suspicious circumstances are not removed, a court is not justified in holding a will genuine just because the signatures are proved and the will is registered (Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur, Supreme Court, 17 July 2025, 2025 INSC 866).
  • A January 2025 judgment repeats earlier rulings that registration alone does not give a will validity and that the will must still be proved; the will in that case was not registered (Leela, 2025).

How these fit together. The Metpalli judgment is final between its parties: requests asking the Court to reconsider it (review and curative petitions) were dismissed, but those orders do not adopt its sentence on registration as a general rule. Other judgments of two-judge benches, both before and after it, take a narrower view without referring to it. Metpalli was also decided by two judges, and at least one High Court has applied it as an initial presumption in favour of a registered will, so a registered will may be argued either way. Our reading, not a ruling of any court: registration is optional, it may help as a supporting circumstance, and it does not make a will valid or replace proof through an attesting witness.

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • Register your will only if you want to. Either way, choose witnesses who can be found, because registration does not replace them.
  • If you register, check the officer's endorsement on the will before you leave the office. Your name and details should be correct, and any correction should be initialled.
  • Keep the signed original safe even if the will is registered (see "Proving the will after a death" below).

When a will looks suspicious

Suspicious circumstances must be real and must come from the will or the evidence, not from a doubting mind, and they are weighed together, not one at a time (Meena Pradhan, 2023; Pazhanathal, 2026).

Leaving family members out. Natural heirs are the people who would inherit if there were no will.

  • Leaving out a natural heir may not by itself be a suspicious circumstance, because a will exists to depart from the ordinary line of succession. But prudence looks for a reason, and the absence of one, though it does not make every such will fail, casts suspicion on it (Gurdial Singh, 2025).
  • Leaving an heir out is not suspicious merely because the will changes who would otherwise inherit. Where a maker who could not read departed substantially from the ordinary succession, the evidence had to show that the exclusion was her own conscious decision (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • Leaving out a wife may or may not be suspicious; it depends on the facts. Leaving out a wife who had lived with the maker throughout, on good terms, in favour of a stranger or a distant relative raises suspicion. In that case, where she was his only heir in the closest class and the people who received the property were not close relatives, it was an unexplained suspicious circumstance (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • A will need not give reasons. If it does, the court may test whether they are true, and reasons found untrue can raise doubt about whether the maker acted freely and with full understanding (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • Leaving out one of nine children did not defeat a proved will where a reason for the exclusion was stated. The Court said it would not put its own view in place of the maker's, and that it was not deciding what was fair: the maker's wish came first (K.S. Dinachandran, 2025).
  • A father of four left everything to one child, with nothing to explain why the other three were left out, whether they had received other property, or any estrangement. That suspicion was not removed, and it was one of the reasons the will failed (Ramesh Chand, 2025).
  • A will's silence about a wife who lived with the maker until his death, with no reason given, had to be weighed with everything else. There the person relying on the will even denied that she was the maker's wife, and the Court inferred undue influence. The judgment does not require every will to give reasons for leaving out a spouse (Gurdial Singh, 2025).

Wrong statements, the signing and its timing.

  • In one case the Court weighed nine circumstances together. None of them alone would necessarily have defeated the will, but together they raised doubts that were not removed. They included a wrong statement that the property was self-acquired, a step-daughter described as "my daughter", an unexplained exclusion of two branches of the family, and no explanation of where the will had been kept (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • For a maker who cannot read, a scribe's statement that he read the will aloud is not necessarily proof that she understood it. The evidence must show that its main contents, including who receives what, who is left out and which property, were explained to her and consciously adopted (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • No rule requires witnesses from the maker's own village, and a witness's relationship to a beneficiary does not by itself disqualify him. Nothing turns on where a witness lives unless the witness was chosen to help prepare a false will or does not know the maker (Pazhanathal, 2026; Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • A thumb mark by a maker who could not read, on a will that contained incorrect statements, raised serious doubt whether he understood it, and the burden on the person relying on the will was heavy (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • When to make a will is the maker's choice, so timing may not by itself be a reason to doubt it; but it can count together with other circumstances (Sardari Lal, 2026).
  • The Court agreed that a will was suspicious where the maker, who usually signed documents, put only a thumb impression on it three days before he died, a close relative rather than a professional scribe wrote it, and the scribe's presence was doubtful. These were findings on the facts taken together, not a new rule (Dorairaj v. Doraisamy, Supreme Court, 5 February 2026, 2026 INSC 126).
  • The maker's second wife, who relied on the will, denied any part in making it, yet the stamp paper was bought in her name, the only attesting witness called was her brother, and the will was made in a different town from where the maker lived. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that these were suspicious circumstances, applying the rule that a beneficiary's active part in making a will is one (Leela, 2025).
  • Wills made shortly before death have been upheld: in Gopal Krishan (2025) the maker died the next day, and in Meena Pradhan (2023) about a week later.

Age, illness and understanding.

  • Old age, illness, illiteracy, physical weakness or using a thumb impression do not by themselves make a person unable to make a will; the question is whether the maker knew and understood what they were doing. Whoever alleges fraud, coercion or undue influence ordinarily has to prove it (Pazhanathal, 2026).
  • A witness's imprecise memory, 24 years later, of his visits to the maker's house did not cast doubt on the signing, and the maker was found to have been of sound and disposing mind (K.S. Dinachandran, 2025).
  • Asthma and a cough when the will was signed did not show that the maker lacked his senses, so the will was not suspicious on the ground of ill health. A will that gave part of his land to his niece, as the will described her, without mentioning his wife and young daughter, was not suspicious either, because the rest of his property stayed with them (Thangam v. Navamani Ammal, Supreme Court, 4 March 2024, 2024 INSC 164).

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • If you leave out, or give less to, a husband or wife, a child or a parent, consider adding a short, factual reason. Make sure it is true, because a court may test it.
  • Describe every person and every property accurately: the exact relationship, and how you hold each property. A wrong statement in a will can count against it.
  • Sign the way you usually sign documents. If you will use a thumb impression, record why.
  • Keep the people who benefit out of the drafting, the arrangements and the room.
  • If you cannot read the will's language, have it read over and explained, including who receives what, who is left out and which property, and have the will record who did this.
  • If you are elderly or unwell, a doctor's certificate of your fitness, made on the signing day, is a useful record. There is no wrong time to make a will, but one made while you are well leaves fewer questions.

What a will can and cannot do

  • Signing an agreement to sell does not pass ownership of land. Land the owner had agreed to sell, but whose sale deed was signed only after his death, was still his when he died and formed part of his estate (Zoharbee v. Imam Khan, Supreme Court, 16 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1245).
  • An agreement to sell, a power of attorney, an affidavit and a receipt, all signed on the same day as a will, did not pass ownership of land; only a registered deed of transfer does (Ramesh Chand, 2025).
  • A document that passes property now is a gift or settlement; one that passes it only on the maker's death is a will, whatever it is called, and registration alone does not make it a gift. Keeping a right to live in or use the property for life does not turn a gift into a will where ownership passes now (N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma, Supreme Court, 24 March 2025, 2025 INSC 388).
  • A gift that has been accepted and acted on cannot be cancelled by the giver alone, whereas a will can be changed or revoked any number of times while its maker is of sound mind. The judgment does not say which community the family belonged to; gifts under Muslim law follow their own rules, set out below (N.P. Saseendran, 2025).
  • Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu woman holds property she possesses as full owner, not as a limited owner (section 14(1)). That does not apply to property she acquired under a gift, will or other document whose own terms give her only a restricted estate, meaning limited rights (section 14(2)). How the two parts fit together is unsettled, as the next point explains.
  • How sections 14(1) and 14(2) work together has been sent to a larger bench. Two judges found at least 18 decisions that vary from or are inconsistent with the leading case, V. Tulasamma (1977), on facts where a husband's 1965 will gave his wife land and houses she could not sell. On 12 February 2025 the matter was directed to be listed before a Constitution Bench of five judges, and no decision had been found by 21 October 2026 (Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan, Supreme Court, order of 9 December 2024, 2024 INSC 945).
  • Until that bench rules, the Supreme Court has not settled whether a life estate, a right to property for her lifetime only, given by will to a Hindu wife or widow stays limited or becomes full ownership (Tej Bhan, 2024, and the later orders in it).

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • A will should speak only of what happens after your death. If you want someone to have property now, that is a gift, which you may not be able to undo, so take an advocate's advice first.
  • List what you own as it stands on the day you sign. If you have agreed to sell property but it has not yet been transferred by a registered deed, list it and say what should happen to it.
  • If you are Hindu and want to give your wife, or another woman, property only for her lifetime, take an advocate's advice first: the law on this is unsettled.

Gifts and wills under Muslim law

These judgments concern families governed by Muslim law. They do not record which school of Muslim law the families followed. A Muslim married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 follows the Indian Succession Act instead (see the note "Which law governs your will").

  • In a case about dividing an estate where there was no will, the Court observed that a Muslim's will is carried out first, within limits: it cannot exceed one-third of the estate, and cannot ordinarily favour an heir without the other heirs' consent; the rest passes under the Muslim rules of inheritance. This was an observation, not a ruling on a will, and the Court said nothing about how consent is given or about differences between schools (Zoharbee, 2025).
  • An oral gift (hiba) under Muslim law needs three things: a clear declaration by the giver, acceptance, and delivery of possession, actual or constructive (for example, the giver applying to have the land records changed to the receiver's name). Once all three are met it is complete and cannot be revoked, and it needs no writing or registration (Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen, Supreme Court, 7 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1187).
  • Possession must be shown by evidence of acting under the gift, at the time and afterwards, such as collecting rent, holding the title papers or mutation. Courts treat an oral gift first put forward after the giver's death with great care (Dharmrao, 2025).

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • If you are Muslim and want to leave property to an heir, or more than a third of your estate, take an advocate's advice first.
  • If you make a gift in your lifetime, complete it openly: hand over possession, and let the change show, for example in the land records.

After a death

Probate is a copy of the will certified under a court's seal, with a grant of administration of the estate. Since 20 December 2025 the Indian Succession Act no longer makes probate a condition for an executor or a beneficiary to establish their rights under a will in court, but it is still available (see the note "Probate and succession certificates after December 2025").

Probate: time limits and who can object.

  • The Indian Succession Act sets no time limit for applying for probate or for applying to revoke (cancel) a grant of probate. So an application to revoke a grant (section 263) falls under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963: three years, counted from when the applicant knew of the grant. Both sides in that case accepted that Article 137 applied. Time can also run from constructive notice, meaning what a reasonably careful person would have found out: people who were served notice in 2013 of land-record proceedings that rested on the probate, and did nothing, were too late when they applied in 2022 (Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen, Supreme Court, 29 May 2026, 2026 INSC 602).
  • A grant of probate binds everyone, not only the parties. Anyone with an interest in the estate, even a slight one, is entitled to be served with notice before the grant. Probate obtained by leaving out people with an interest, including people who had bought property from the maker before the probate case began, and by suppressing material facts was rightly revoked (S. Leorex Sebastian v. Sarojini, Supreme Court, 21 April 2026, 2026 INSC 400).
  • In orders refusing the State of Rajasthan permission to appeal, the Court said a grant of probate can be challenged only by those who would be the likely heirs if the will failed, so the State had no right to object: under the Hindu Succession Act, a Hindu's property passes to the Government only where there is no will and no heir (section 29). A later judgment upheld a revocation sought by buyers of the property, without referring to those orders (State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh, Supreme Court, orders of 1 September 2025, no neutral citation printed; Leorex Sebastian, 2026).

Succession certificates, and suits against a will.

  • A child heir cannot be expected to answer a public notice or start court proceedings alone. A succession certificate, the court certificate used to collect money owed to the person who died, had been granted without the child being represented, though the people who applied knew of him and took no steps to have a guardian represent him. The Court set the certificate aside, and said that a certificate obtained by suppressing or misstating material facts is liable to be revoked (section 383) (Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, Supreme Court, 1 April 2026, 2026 INSC 306).
  • A civil suit to declare a will void must be filed within three years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, from when the right to sue first arises, and time does not wait for "full knowledge". On the plaintiff's own dates the suit was late and was rejected at the outset. Both sides accepted that Article 58 applied (Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, Supreme Court, 15 April 2025, 2025 INSC 485).

Proving the will after a death.

  • A will must be proved by calling at least one attesting witness. Admissions of the will in earlier family lawsuits did not remove that need against buyers who denied the will, and, following an earlier ruling, the Court said, for the sake of argument, that the duty would remain even if the will were not denied (Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg, Supreme Court, 23 April 2025, 2025 INSC 552).
  • A certified copy of a will is secondary evidence, that is, evidence other than the original. It cannot prove the will unless it is first shown, in the pleadings and by evidence, that the original is lost, destroyed or otherwise unavailable; this applied even though the will was said to be registered (Rajeev Gupta, 2025).

The land records. Mutation is the entry of a new name in the land revenue records, for example after a death or a sale.

  • Mutation confers no right, title or interest; it serves the collection of land revenue. Under Madhya Pradesh revenue law, an application to record a name on the basis of a will cannot be refused just because it rests on a will, and where no heir raises a serious dispute and there is no legal bar, it should not be refused. A serious dispute about the will itself, or between rival wills, belongs in the civil court (Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal, Supreme Court, 19 December 2025, 2025 INSC 1485).
  • Rights under a will can be relied on only after the maker's death. Where title is disputed, particularly when mutation is sought on the basis of a will, the person relying on the will must go to the civil court; Tarachandra (2025) later said this does not bar recording a will where the heirs raise no dispute (Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court, order of 6 September 2021, which the Court cites as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802).

What this means when you make a will (good practice, not a rule of law):

  • Keep the signed original safe and tell your executor where it is. A copy, even a certified copy of a registered will, may not be enough to prove it.
  • Choose witnesses who can be found: a will, even a registered one, must be proved through at least one attesting witness if one is alive and able to give evidence.
  • Name every member of your family in your will, including any child who is a minor, and name a guardian for a minor child, so that your executor knows whom to tell if probate is sought.
  • Let your family know, before they need it, that a name in the land records does not settle who owns the land, and keep your will where they can find it.

How Waseeyat applies these rules

  • The signing kit asks both witnesses to be with you, together, for the whole signing. The will's attestation clause records that both witnesses saw you sign, or that you acknowledged your signature to them, and that each signed in your presence.
  • The questionnaire asks for each witness's full name, a parent's name, year of birth, address, phone, and the type and last four digits of an ID, never the full number.
  • You list your whole family, including married daughters and the children of any child who has died. If a child of yours is a minor, you name a guardian and a backup guardian.
  • If a spouse, child or parent receives less than others, or nothing, you can add a short, factual reason in your own words. It is optional.
  • If you will sign with a thumb impression, you say why, and the will records the reason. If you do not read English, the will names who read it over to you and explained it.
  • If you are 80 or older, or seriously ill, the kit includes a doctor's certificate of fitness to complete on the signing day. It is recommended. The kit also asks that people who receive something under the will are not in the room and do not organise the signing.
  • Registering the will is optional. Whatever you choose, record where the original is kept, and keep a scan in your private vault.
  • Waseeyat's guided will for Muslims is not open yet. Until it opens, once Waseeyat opens, a fixed-fee review by an empanelled advocate is offered instead.
  • Waseeyat is opening soon, and sign-up is not open yet. The signing kit downloads once an empanelled advocate has signed off the will template.

Sources

  • The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act 39 of 1925), sections 58(1), 263 and 383, read 21 October 2026; section 63 and Schedule III, read 9 October 2026 for the notes "Making a valid will in India" and "Which law governs your will". India Code consolidated text as on 19 June 2026, central act page: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/3eeb6aec-1e1f-42d4-9673-c04d21829663
  • The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), sections 1(3), 67, 68 and 170. India Code consolidated text as on 6 October 2025, read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/9e461245-2c13-4171-9d9d-267425c01e1d
  • The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), sections 14 and 29. India Code consolidated text as on 1 June 2026, read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/08b1e3ba-8e9d-4022-8cb7-b0b2ac577f3e/content
  • The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963), Article 137. India Code consolidated text as on 30 August 2026, read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/8c2f3bc0-5daf-4d11-971f-ad5f9b78b74b/content (Article 58 is stated as the Supreme Court applied it in Nikhila Divyang Mehta, below).
  • Pazhanathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors v. Alamathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 13 August 2026, 2026 INSC 860. Full text read 21 October 2026 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106136487/
  • Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 6 July 2026, 2026 INSC 669. Full text read 21 October 2026 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122051328/
  • Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 29 May 2026, 2026 INSC 602. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/477/477_2026_8_1504_71638_Judgement_29-May-2026.pdf
  • S. Leorex Sebastian & Anr. v. Sarojini & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 21 April 2026, 2026 INSC 400. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/29475/29475_2022_11_1503_70462_Judgement_21-Apr-2026.pdf
  • Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 1 April 2026, 2026 INSC 306 (marked non-reportable). Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/3873/3873_2020_11_1501_69631_Judgement_01-Apr-2026.pdf
  • Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 5 February 2026, 2026 INSC 126. Full text read 21 October 2026 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96284594/
  • Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 19 December 2025, 2025 INSC 1485. Full text read 21 October 2026 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134495605/
  • K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 17 December 2025, 2025 INSC 1451. Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment; full text also at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193829654/
  • Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 16 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1245. Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51193808/ ; the Court's record of proceedings of 16 October 2025: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/13302/13302_2012_11_1501_65059_Order_16-Oct-2025.pdf.
  • Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 7 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1187. Full text read 21 October 2026 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122742839/
  • Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 1 September 2025, 2025 INSC 1059. Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment; full text also at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83663747/
  • State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others (SLP (C) Nos. 14721-14723/2024), with Surendra Singh & Anr. v. Lord Northbook & Ors. (SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30645 of 2023), Supreme Court of India, signed orders of 1 September 2025 (no neutral citation printed). Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/45720/45720_2023_5_301_63852_Order_01-Sep-2025.pdf
  • Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others v. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by LRs., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 21 July 2025, 2025 INSC 879. Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment, with the orders dismissing the review petitions (27 November 2025) at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86611832/ and the curative petition (16 April 2026) at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90374042/
  • Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 17 July 2025, 2025 INSC 866. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/10063/10063_2010_2_1501_62335_Judgement_17-Jul-2025.pdf
  • Rajeev Gupta & Ors. v. Prashant Garg & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 23 April 2025, 2025 INSC 552. Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment, with the order dismissing the review petition (22 July 2025) at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51481422/
  • Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 15 April 2025, 2025 INSC 485 (marked non-reportable). Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/20183/20183_2024_15_1501_60903_Judgement_15-Apr-2025.pdf
  • N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 24 March 2025, 2025 INSC 388. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/39383/39383_2022_13_1503_60392_Judgement_24-Mar-2025.pdf
  • Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 2 January 2025, 2025 INSC 18. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/27882/27882_2018_17_1503_58238_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf
  • Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 2 January 2025, 2025 INSC 10 (marked non-reportable). Read 21 October 2026 in a court copy of the signed judgment, with the order dismissing the review petition (6 May 2025) at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166884428/
  • Tej Bhan (D) Through LR. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs. & Ors., Supreme Court of India, order of 9 December 2024, 2024 INSC 945. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/35761/35761_2013_13_1501_57855_Judgement_09-Dec-2024.pdf, with the record of proceedings of 12 February 2025 at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8768248/
  • Thangam and Another v. Navamani Ammal, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 4 March 2024, 2024 INSC 164. Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/31069/31069_2007_13_1502_51045_Judgement_04-Mar-2024.pdf
  • Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr., Supreme Court of India, judgment of 21 September 2023, 2023 INSC 847 (marked non-reportable; later judgments of the Court cite it as (2023) 9 SCC 734). Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/18141/18141_2010_11_1503_47199_Judgement_21-Sep-2023.pdf
  • Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Supreme Court of India, signed order of 6 September 2021 in SLP (C) No. 13146/2021 (no neutral citation printed; later judgments of the Court cite it as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802). Read 21 October 2026 at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/17825/17825_2021_43_17_29827_Order_06-Sep-2021.pdf

General information about Indian law, not legal advice. Waseeyat is not a law firm.

Answers come straight from the text below, with the part it came from.

Waseeyat is a technology-enabled will-drafting and succession-planning service. We are not a law firm and do not give legal advice; where an advocate is involved, the advocate is independently responsible for their own work. A will made with Waseeyat is only valid once it is printed and signed by you on paper in the presence of two witnesses who also sign (section 63, Indian Succession Act 1925); a will cannot be signed electronically under Indian law. No outcome is guaranteed. All AI-assisted drafts are reviewed by a person before they reach you.