The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti, recently set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had invalidated a registered joint will under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The bench clarified the limits of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasizing that additional substantial questions of law in second appeals can only be framed in exceptional circumstances, with cogent reasons recorded.

Background:

The case revolved around the estate of Philomina Pius, the admitted owner of the suit properties. In 1999, she settled 4 cents of land in favor of her son, CP Sebastian. Later, on January 27, 2003, she and her husband, late C.R. Pius, executing a registered joint Will bequeathed the remaining properties to their son, CP Francis (the Appellant).

The Will required Francis to pay sums ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 to each of his six siblings within five years of both parents’ deaths.

Five of the siblings of the appellant had filed for partition, alleging that the Will was forged and executed under misrepresentation while their father lacked mental capacity . The Appellant relied on the 1999 settlement and the 2003 joint will, arguing that his siblings’ only entitlement was to the monetary amounts specified in the will.

The Trial Court, supported by medical and witness evidence, upheld the will as genuine and properly executed, finding that late C.R. Pius was mentally sound. The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings.

However, the Kerala High Court in second appeal reversed these decisions, holding that the bequest to the Appellant was void under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act because one of the attesting witnesses was his wife. Notably, this ground was never part of the pleadings or issues before the lower courts.

The Appellant argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by introducing and deciding a new question of law unrelated to the pleadings or evidence.

He stressed that all three courts had concurrently found the will validly executed, and that the High Court had in effect rewritten the case, undermining the testators’ clear intent. He also questioned the interpretation of Section 67, contending that it may conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Mathai M. Paikaday, defended the High Court’s ruling. He argued that the High Court was allowed to frame an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC and that Section 67 had always made such bequests invalid if an attesting witness was the spouse of the beneficiary.

He maintained that succession must therefore be treated as intestate, entitling all eight children to equal shares. However, Advocate Akshay Sahay, also appearing for the Respondents, noted that intestate succession would defeat the parents’ last wishes, highlighting the tension between strict legal rules and what the parents actually wanted in their will.

The Supreme Court stressed that High Courts have limited powers under Section 100(5) CPC and cannot add new legal questions casually.

"The ratio of the precedents is that the High Court is competent and endowed with discretionary jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law not stated when the second appeal was admitted. The High Court is entitled to formulate an additional substantial question of law for reasons to be recorded if the High Court is of the view that the case involves such a question of law. The proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the CPC comes into operation in exceptional cases, albeit for strong and convincing reasons to be specifically recorded by the High Court.”, the court said.

Further, the Court outlined guiding principles from precedent for framing additional substantial questions of law under the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC:

1. A substantial question of law must arise from the parties’ pleadings and lower courts’ findings, and must be so fundamental that it goes to the root of the matter.

2. The jurisdiction to frame a new question is exceptional, to be exercised only for strong and convincing reasons, not as routine.

3. The proviso contemplates “any other substantial question of law” only if at least one has already been framed at the admission stage.

4. The High Court must be satisfied that the new question is truly a substantial question of law, not merely a legal plea.

5. The Court is mandatorily required to record reasons for framing such an additional question.

6. The opposite party must be given fair opportunity to contest the new question. Framing one while dictating judgment, without hearing parties, is improper.

Setting aside the High Court’s reasoning, the court stated that:

“we record that in the circumstances of this case, the High Court fell in error by not recording reasons for framing the additional substantial question of law. The additional substantial question of law may be an abstract application of Section 67 without verifying the foundational facts and circumstances. The admission of a party must be in the manner known to law. An admission in pleading and evidence is certainly an admission. By appreciating an admission, the Court is entitled to apply the consequence of law. In the analysis, we notice that the relationship of DW5 with DW1 is either assumed by the Court or not contested by the parties on any of the grounds available, namely, want of pleadings, etc., before the High Court. The above consideration leads to the irrefutable conclusion that an additional substantial question of law is framed without pleadings, issues and reasons and a finding is recorded.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the joint will by restoring the concurrent findings of the lower courts and directed the Appellant to pay the amounts due to his siblings within three months, failing which interest at 6% and a charge on the property would apply.

It emphasized that powers under Article 136 must be exercised sparingly, but intervention was justified here to uphold the testators’ wishes and prevent injustice. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Case Details: C.P. Francis Vs. C.P. Joseph And Others, SLP(C) No. 13348 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sarath S Janardanan

Advocate for the Respondent: Akshay Sahay and Shishir Pinaki