In a significant judgment that clarifies the leaf of inheritance and succession laws, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the "presumption of truth" usually given to very old documents does not apply to a Will.

Even if a Will is more than 30 years old, it cannot be considered valid automatically. Instead, the person claiming the property must strictly prove that the Will was signed and witnessed according to the law.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while presiding over the case of Rampyare and Anr v. Ramkishun, emphasized that a Will is a unique document. Unlike a sale deed or a gift deed, a Will only comes into effect after the person who wrote it passes away. Because it can be changed or cancelled anytime during the owner's life, its age alone doesn't prove it is genuine.

The dispute started in Village Paradol, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. Two brothers, Rampyare and Shivshankar (the plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit to claim ownership of a piece of land.

Their claim was based on a registered Will dated August 12, 1958. They argued that their grandfather, Mahadev, had executed this Will in favor of their father, Ramavatar. According to them, Mahadev chose to give the land to Ramavatar because he served and took care of him in his old age.

On the other side was their uncle, Ramkishun (the defendant). He strongly disagreed. He argued that:

The property was ancestral (passed down through generations) and not Mahadev’s personal property to give away.
The 1958 Will was a fake and forged document.
The land was actually divided equally between the brothers (Ramavatar and Ramkishun) after Mahadev and their father Jagdev passed away.

Initially, the Trial Court looked at the evidence. The plaintiffs couldn't bring the original witnesses who signed the Will because they had all passed away over the years. However, the court found that the plaintiffs didn't even try to prove the signatures or follow the alternative legal steps required when witnesses are dead.

The Trial Court dismissed the case, saying the Will was "Not Proved." When the plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, they lost again. Finally, they reached the High Court.

The heart of the legal battle at the High Court was Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Usually, under Section 90, if a document is more than 30 years old and comes from "proper custody" (meaning it was kept by the right person in the right place), the court can assume it is genuine. The court assumes the signature and the writing belong to the person they claim to belong to.

The appellants argued: "Our Will is from 1958. It is more than 60 years old! Since it is a registered document and very old, the Court should automatically believe it is valid under Section 90, especially since the witnesses are dead."

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru clarified that the law treats Wills differently from other documents. He relied on several Supreme Court judgments (like M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs) to explain why age doesn't equal validity for a Will.

1. Strict Proof is Mandatory

Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a Will must be proved by calling at least one "attesting witness" (someone who saw the Will being signed).

2. What if the witnesses are dead?

If all witnesses are dead, the law (Section 69 of the Evidence Act) says you must prove two things:

The signature of at least one witness.
The signature of the person who wrote the Will (the testator).

In this case, the plaintiffs didn't do this. They simply relied on the age of the paper. The High Court said this wasn't enough.

3. Registration is not a "Free Pass"

The court made a very important point: Just because a Will is registered with the Sub-Registrar doesn't mean you don't have to prove it in court. Registration helps, but it does not remove the duty to prove the Will's execution through witnesses or signature verification.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Court’s ruling can be summarized in these simple points:

Age Doesn't Guarantee Genuineness: You cannot walk into a court with a 40-year-old Will and expect the judge to accept it without proof.
The "30-Year Rule" Exception: While the law trusts most old documents, it is suspicious of old Wills. This is to protect families from forged documents that might suddenly "appear" decades later.
Strict Procedure: If you are claiming property through a Will, you must ensure you have proof of the signatures of the witnesses and the creator of the Will.
Concurrent Findings: The High Court noted that since two lower courts had already analyzed the facts and found the Will unproven, the High Court would not interfere unless there was a massive legal error (which there wasn't).

The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder to everyone about the importance of properly documenting and proving inheritance. If you are relying on a Will—even one that looks official and has the government's registration stamp—you must be prepared to prove its "life" in court through evidence.

As Justice Guru noted, a Will speaks from the grave, and because the person who wrote it is no longer here to verify it, the Court must be extra careful. The 1958 Will in this case remained a "piece of paper" because the legal steps to prove it were ignored.

Case Name: Rampyare and Anr v. Ramkishun
Case Number: SA No. 183 of 2021
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru
Date of Judgment: January 29, 2026