Lilian Coelho & Ors. Vs. Myra Philomena Coalho [Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India in Lilian Coelho & Ors. vs. Myra Philomena Coalho [Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009] delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, addressing a complex testamentary dispute involving the Will of Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho.
Facts and Background
The dispute arose over the validity and genuineness of a Will executed by the deceased, Maria Francisca Coelho, in 1982. The Will purportedly divided her property equally among her two sons, George and Reginald, and her daughter, Myra Philomena Coalho (the respondent). Another son, Victor, challenged the Will’s authenticity, alleging forgery and undue influence. After Victor’s death, his widow continued the contest. The matter was converted into a testamentary suit following objections to the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court focused on the distinction between:
Valid execution of a Will as per statutory requirements (Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act), and
The genuineness of the Will, i.e., whether the Will is free from suspicious circumstances and worthy of reliance.
The Court examined whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the suit on grounds that, although the Will was validly executed, it was shrouded with suspicious circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
The Single Judge had held that the Will was duly executed but dismissed the suit due to suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The Division Bench reversed this, holding the Will genuine and valid. The Supreme Court clarified that valid execution and genuineness are distinct concepts. A Will can be validly executed but still be unworthy of reliance if suspicious circumstances remain unresolved.
The Court found that the Division Bench erred in assuming the Single Judge had made a specific finding on the Will’s genuineness. The Supreme Court emphasized that the propounder of a Will must remove all suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court; failure to do so allows the Court to decline to act on the Will despite its valid execution.
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restored the matter for fresh consideration by the Division Bench in accordance with law, directing a deeper examination of the suspicious circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores that:
Proving valid execution of a Will is necessary but not sufficient to establish its genuineness.
Courts have a duty to scrutinize suspicious circumstances and ensure the Will is free from fraud, coercion, or forgery.
The burden lies on the propounder to satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt about the Will’s authenticity.
Lower courts’ reasoned findings deserve respect unless shown to be erroneous.
This ruling clarifies the legal standards for testamentary disputes and reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting testators’ true intentions against suspicious claims.
Citation: Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho, Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009, decided on 2 January 2025.
RELATED Blog
0 comments