7 Red Flags That Can Make an Indian Will Look Suspicious in Court

• When a family dispute over an inheritance enters a courtroom, a genuine signature alone does not necessarily establish a Will. Where execution is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the person propounding the Will may be required to remove those doubts to the satisfaction of the court.

Judges assess these circumstances cumulatively rather than in isolation. A single procedural peculiarity may not invalidate a document, but a combination of irregularities can lead a court to conclude that the instrument does not reflect the free and conscious volition of the testator.

What the Delhi High Court Found in Sudhir Trehan

In Sudhir Trehan & Anr. v. Praveen Trehan & Ors. (decided 31 August 2026), the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal and affirmed a finding that a disputed 2004 Will was not genuine. The Court examined multiple cumulative factors: the Will was handwritten on a single sheet by the testator's husband (who was the father of the propounder), featured an unexplained blank area covering nearly one-third of the page, relied on an attesting witness who was a friend of the propounder, displayed material inconsistencies in witness testimony, and carried an endorsement by a doctor who was not the testator's regular treating physician and whose fitness note, according to the Court's assessment, appeared to have been prepared before the doctor signed it.

Using the lessons reaffirmed in Sudhir Trehan, here is a pre-execution review of seven circumstances that frequently attract judicial scrutiny under Indian law—and how practical drafting and execution choices help address them.

1. A Beneficiary Takes a Prominent Role in Preparing the Will

If a major beneficiary plays an active, leading role in taking instructions, arranging the drafter, or dictating terms, the court will examine the arrangement with heightened scrutiny—especially if that beneficiary receives a substantial benefit.

• The Risk: While beneficiary participation does not automatically invalidate a Will, it can be treated as a suspicious circumstance, which may require the propounder to provide satisfactory evidence that the testator acted independently and voluntarily.

• The Practical Step: Where practical, the testator should communicate instructions directly and independently to the Will-drafting professional or advocate. A major beneficiary should avoid orchestrating the preparation or controlling the execution process.

2. Close Family Members Are Excluded Without an Apparent Explanation

Subject to applicable personal law and the nature of the property, a testator generally has testamentary freedom to distribute property through a Will, including by departing from natural succession. However, an unnatural, improbable, or unfair distribution without apparent reason invites judicial scrutiny.

• The Risk: An unexplained or apparently unnatural exclusion of close family members—such as disinheriting certain children while favoring another—can become a suspicious circumstance, particularly when considered alongside other unusual features surrounding the Will.

• The Practical Step: Where a testator is intentionally making an unequal distribution or departing from natural succession, recording the genuine reasons for that decision (such as prior lifetime financial provisions, estrangement, or specific personal support) directly in the document helps explain the disposition if it is subsequently questioned.

3. Questions Exist About Testamentary Capacity

The law requires the testator to possess a "sound disposing mind" at the time of execution: they must understand the nature of the act, the extent of their estate, and the claims of persons they are including or excluding.

• The Risk: Executing a Will during acute illness, under heavy medication, or amid cognitive impairment can create a significant evidentiary vulnerability. Challengers may question whether the testator genuinely understood the nature and effect of the document.

The Practical Step: A medical certificate is not a statutory requirement under Indian law, and having one does not guarantee validity if the circumstances appear engineered (as seen in Sudhir Trehan*, where the endorsement appeared pre-prepared before the doctor signed). Where advanced age, illness, or vulnerability could reasonably become an issue, consider obtaining an independent, contemporaneous medical assessment where the doctor independently evaluates the testator's testamentary capacity on the date of signing.

4. The Attesting Witnesses Are Unreliable or Difficult to Trace

The issue here is often an evidentiary proof problem: even if a Will was properly executed, proving that fact years or decades later becomes significantly harder without dependable witness testimony.

• The Risk: Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, an unprivileged Will must be attested by at least two witnesses. When an attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence, the applicable law of evidence generally requires calling at least one attesting witness to prove execution. If witnesses give contradictory evidence, fail to recall fundamental signing details, or cannot be traced at all, the propounder faces severe difficulty establishing due execution. Suspicion also increases when a witness shares a close, interested relationship with a primary beneficiary.

• The Practical Step: Select independent, credible witnesses who are likely to remain traceable and available to give evidence if probate or other succession proceedings arise. Where practical, avoid using primary beneficiaries or their immediate spouses as attesting witnesses.

5. Unusual Document Preparation or Signs of Later Alteration

Courts scrutinize the physical document for signs of tampering, subsequent insertion, or pre-signed paper misuse.

The Risk: In Sudhir Trehan*, the Court specifically rejected the argument that using different pens or inks by itself establishes suspicion. However, structural layout anomalies—such as an unexplained blank area occupying one-third of the page, text crowded unusually around signatures, suspicious interlineations, or formatting suggesting signatures were placed before the operative text was written—can contribute to a finding of suspicious circumstances.

• The Practical Step: Maintain a continuous, clean document layout without unexplained blank spaces between operative clauses and execution blocks. Use clear page numbering ("Page X of Y"), have the testator sign or initial each page as a prudent execution practice, and ensure no awkward spacing could invite allegations of subsequent additions.

6. A Sudden and Unexplained Departure from an Earlier Plan

A testator may alter or revoke their Will at any time during their life. Yet, a sudden, radical departure from long-standing intentions can raise questions if the timing and beneficiary profile appear irregular.

• The Risk: Replacing a documented, long-standing estate plan with a hurried disposition—especially one that substantially benefits a recent acquaintance or caregiver over close family members who were previously expected to inherit—prompts courts to examine whether the change represents genuine, voluntary intent.

• The Practical Step: Keep a clear record of the testator's genuine intentions when making a significant change. Incorporate a clear revocation clause explaining the evolution of the estate plan, supplemented by contemporaneous notes, correspondence, or an independent video recording of the signing where appropriate.

7. Flawed Attestation and Formalities

Statutory execution and attestation formalities must be strictly observed, and failure to comply with these statutory requirements can prevent the Will from being validly proved in court.

• The Risk: Challengers frequently target procedural defects during attestation. A common misconception is that witnesses must sign in each other's presence; Indian law does not mandate this. Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the statutory rules are:

1. The Will must be signed or marked by the testator, or by another person in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction.
2. Each witness must either see the testator sign/mark the Will (or see someone else sign in the testator's presence and direction) or receive a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark from the testator.
3. Each witness must sign the Will in the presence of the testator.

• The Practical Step: The attestation clause should accurately record that the testator signed or acknowledged the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses, and that each witness signed the Will in the direct presence of the testator.

Pre-Execution Legal Checklist

What the Law Demands: Proving the Will

Under Indian law, a Will is not proved simply by presenting the document. If contested, the propounder must generally satisfy the court on three core issues:

1. Due Execution and Attestation: Compliance with the formal requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Where an attesting witness is available and capable of giving evidence, the Will is generally proved by examining at least one attesting witness, as required by Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
2. Testamentary Capacity: Evidence demonstrating that the testator understood the nature of the act, the extent of the property being disposed of, and the claims of those included or excluded.
3. Removal of Suspicious Circumstances: Where the surrounding circumstances raise reasonable doubts as to whether the document reflects the free and voluntary mind of the testator, the propounder must offer a satisfactory explanation to dispel those doubts.

A carefully drafted and properly executed Will cannot guarantee that no disgruntled relative will file a challenge. However, proactive steps during drafting and execution can significantly reduce avoidable sources of suspicion and make the testator's intentions clearer, more verifiable, and easier to establish in court.

Create your Will on iWills.in with a structured drafting and execution process designed to reduce avoidable errors.