LANDMARK RULING: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT INVALIDATES MANDATORY WILL REGISTRATION IN UTTAR PRADESH

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Registration Of Wills Is Not Mandatory In Uttar Pradesh, overturning a crucial provision enacted by the state government on August 23, 2004. This landmark decision, delivered in response to a petition filed by Pramila Tiwari, sheds light on the intricacies of testamentary law and underscores the importance of individual autonomy in estate planning.

Key Highlights of the Verdict

The division bench, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar, declared Section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act void to the extent that it mandates the registration of wills. The court emphasized that the non-registration of a will, whether before or after the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2004, will not render it void. This ruling upholds individuals’ rights to decide the fate of their assets without the burden of compulsory registration.

Legal Analysis

 The High Court’s decision rests on the principle that the mandatory registration of wills under Section 169(3) of the 1950 Act contradicts the Indian Registration Act, 1908, where such registration is optional. By deeming the amendment invalid, the court reaffirmed the discretionary nature of will registration and upheld the supremacy of existing legal frameworks.

Context and Clarification

The Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to mandate the registration of wills in 2004 sparked legal debate, as conflicting interpretations emerged from the Shobhnath and Jahan Singh cases. To resolve this ambiguity, the Chief Justice forwarded a reference to the division bench, seeking clarification on the necessity of will registration in light of the conflicting views.

Constitutional Considerations:

 During the proceedings, the court delved into the constitutional aspects of the issue, questioning the state legislature’s authority to enforce compulsory will registration without the President’s assent. Given that wills, intestacy, and succession fall within the Concurrent List, the court underscored the need for Presidential assent and highlighted existing central legislation under the Registration Act, 1908.

Implications and Conclusion:

This landmark ruling not only clarifies the legal landscape surrounding will registration in Uttar Pradesh but also reinforces the fundamental principle of testamentary freedom. By striking down the provision for mandatory registration, the Allahabad High Court has safeguarded individuals’ rights to shape their legacies according to their wishes, free from unnecessary legal constraints.

In essence, the judgment serves as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice for all citizens, reaffirming the principle that the law should be a facilitator, not a hindrance, in matters of personal autonomy and estate planning.

Case Title: Pramila Tiwari v. Anil Kumar Mishra And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 8279 of 2022]

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Singh, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Rahul Sahai, Vinod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Uday Bhan Mishra