The Supreme Court has once again clarified a key legal principle: a registered Will carries a presumption of truth—unless someone can convincingly prove otherwise.
In a case involving nearly five acres of agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh, the apex court ruled in favour of Lasum Bai, widow of the late Metpalli Rajanna, restoring her full ownership of the disputed land. The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta overturned a High Court ruling that had cut down her share and declared the land ancestral.
At the heart of the conflict was a Will registered in 1974, paired with an oral family arrangement, both of which outlined how Rajanna’s property was to be divided. Rajanna had children from his first marriage and a second wife, Lasum Bai, who remained childless. After his death in 1983, tensions simmered over inheritance.
Muthaiah, Rajanna’s son from the first marriage, claimed the entire estate, arguing the land was joint family property and that, as sole surviving coparcener, it belonged solely to him. Lasum Bai, however, stood her ground, citing the Will and the oral arrangement which had left her cultivating the northern section of the land, while Muthaiah had the southern portion.
The trial court backed Lasum Bai, finding the Will valid and the arrangement fair. The High Court disagreed, reducing her stake to just a quarter. But the Supreme Court wasn’t convinced by that reversal.
In its ruling, the Court highlighted that a registered Will comes with a built-in presumption of authenticity. The burden, it said, falls squarely on the one disputing it to show irregularities or suspicious circumstances. And in this case, the challenger—Muthaiah—had done neither.
In fact, Muthaiah admitted in court that the Will bore his father’s signature and acknowledged the existing division of land. According to the Court, this significantly bolstered the claim of an oral family settlement that echoed the Will’s terms.
“The evidence on record supports the fairness of the distribution and affirms the credibility of the family arrangement,” the Court noted. It emphasized that Lasum Bai’s possession of the land aligned with what the Will promised—leaving little room for doubt.
With that, the trial court’s decision was reinstated. Lasum Bai was declared the rightful and absolute owner of the disputed property—upholding both the letter and the spirit of her late husband’s wishes.