Chhattisgarh HC Holds 30-Year Presumption Under Evidence Act Does Not Apply to Wills [Read Judgment]

Chhatisgarh: The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that the statutory presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relating to documents more than 30 years old, does not apply to wills, which must be strictly proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. The Court dismissed a second appeal filed by plaintiffs claiming title over ancestral land on the basis of a registered will executed in 1958, holding that the will had not been proved in the manner required by law.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru while deciding Second Appeal No. 183 of 2021, arising out of concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both of which had rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of title founded solely on the disputed will.

The appellants, Rampyare and Shivshankar, had instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction, contending that their grandfather Mahadev had executed a registered will dated 12 August 1958, bequeathing the suit land to their father, Ramavatar. According to them, after the deaths of Mahadev and Ramavatar, they became absolute owners and got their names mutated in the revenue records. They alleged that their uncle, Ramkishun, unlawfully got his name entered in the records and forcibly took possession of the land in 2007–08.

The defendants denied the execution of any will and asserted that the alleged will was forged and fabricated. They contended that the ancestral property had already been partitioned among family members and that both Ramavatar and Ramkishun were lawful heirs who had enjoyed possession of their respective shares. It was further pleaded that Mahadev had no male issue and treated both nephews equally, leaving no occasion for an exclusive bequest in favour of one branch.

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the will had not been proved as required by law. Although the will was registered and more than 30 years old, none of the attesting witnesses were examined, and the scribe and witnesses had admittedly passed away. The Court held that mere registration or antiquity of a will does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of proving its execution and attestation. The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that since the will was over 30 years old and came from proper custody, its execution ought to be presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on precedents to contend that strict proof was not possible as all attesting witnesses were no longer alive.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs and Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, to reiterate that the presumption under Section 90 does not extend to wills. The Court observed that a will is a special document which speaks only from the death of the testator and remains revocable during his lifetime, and therefore its genuineness cannot be presumed merely due to its age. Strict compliance with statutory requirements governing proof of wills is mandatory.

The Court further held that the appellants had failed to prove the will even under the alternative modes contemplated by law, including Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. The testimony of the plaintiffs merely asserted the existence of the will, while other witnesses admittedly had not witnessed its execution. Mere registration of the will was held insufficient to prove due execution and attestation.

Emphasising the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were concurrent, well-reasoned, and based on evidence, and could not be characterised as perverse or contrary to law. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.

Case Details:

• Case Name: Rampyare & Another v. Ramkishun & Another
• Citation: 2026:CGHC:5238
• Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
• Case Number: Second Appeal No. 183 of 2021
• Judge: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
• Date of Decision: 29.01.2026
• Appellants: Rampyare, Shivshankar
• Respondents: Ramkishun, State of Chhattisgarh
• Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
• Counsel for State: Mr. Santosh Singh, Government Advocate

[Read Judgment]