Last will supersedes earlier will 

earlier will stands revoked 

Yes, this revokes the previous Will provided the second Will is validly executed.

A Will is however always amendable to challenges by the legal heirs of the maker. 

By creating a new Will automatically revokes any previous Will. The act of making a new Will signifies the testator's intent to nullify all prior Wills. This is a standard practice in India and other jurisdictions where wills are governed by similar laws. 

While not strictly necessary, it's common practice to include a clause in the new Will explicitly revoking all previous Wills and codicils. 

The Madras High Court case of Kuppuswami Raja And Anr. vs Perumal Raja And Ors. held that a new Will effectively revokes a previous one, according to S.S. Rana & Co.

Execution of subsequent will amounts to revoking of earlier will. No further action is required except executing a fresh to nullify earlier will. The  will executed  in 2003 is valid and effective and earlier will is void and unenforceable.

Yes, the line "this is my first and last will" in the 2003 will implies revocation of the 1995 will, even if not stated explicitly.

Under Indian Succession Act, a later valid will automatically revokes an earlier will if:

• It is duly executed and attested,

• The intent to supersede the prior will is clear (as shown by "first and last will"),

• The contents conflict with the previous will (e.g., different beneficiaries, explicit exclusions).

Hence, the 2003 will prevails, and the 1995 will stands revoked by implication.

Yes the 1995 Will gets revoked on making of the 2003 Will provided the latter Will is proved as per law 

A person may make any number of Wills during his/her lifetime and name different beneficiaries under each Will. However, every new Will shall legally revoke the earlier one. The last Will he/she wrote before his/her death alone shall be legally valid.

Any subsequent will revokes the previous one If it is mentioned that it is the final will

- As per law , the last Will is only valid , it means that if your grandfather has written two wills then the Will written in 2003 is valid , and the first will be revoked automatically 

- However, the presence of two witnesses is necessary for the validity of a Will. 

Dear Client,

According to the Indian law of succession, a subsequent will, will normally revoke all the antecedent wills expressly or impliedly. The words "this is my first and last will" at the beginning of the 2003 will are tantamount to an express revocation of all the prior wills, including the 1995 will, even though the prior will is not mentioned. Hence, the 2003 will would generally be considered the operative and valid will and the 1995 will would be considered revoked. But in case of any doubt or controversy, the issue may be resolved through court probate proceedings.

Yes

SIr/Madam, 

It is suggested that after making of second WILL, the previous will stands revoked and there may not be mention of the same in second WILL. 

He can prove the will through certified copy of registered will which is admissible in evidence in court under BSA 2023

Latest will of 2005 supersedes earlier will of 1995 

It revokes earlier will 

Whether certified copy or registered original Will, the Will which was made subsequently is the valid Will,the previous Wills made, if any, stands cancelled automatically.

The original Will alone shall be valid to prove the case.

Dear querist,

The testator made two registered wills—one in 1995 and another in 2003. The 1995 will names a specific beneficiary, who has been expressly excluded from the 2003 will. Although the 2003 will does not explicitly state that it revokes the earlier will, it contains the phrase, “this is my first and last will.” This language clearly reflects the testator’s intention to treat the 2003 will as the final and only valid testamentary document. Courts have consistently held that when a later will declares itself to be the last will and alters the beneficiary structure, it effectively revokes all prior wills, even if it does not use the word "revoke."

In the ongoing civil suit, the plaintiff relies on the 1995 registered will but does not possess the original document. Instead, he has produced a registered copy. The defendant, however, has the original of the 2003 registered will. The absence of the original 1995 will does not invalidate the plaintiff’s claim outright, but it places a heavier burden on him. He must prove that the original has been lost or is otherwise unavailable and must lead secondary evidence in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, he must establish due execution and attestation of the will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

The existence of the original 2003 will, which excludes the plaintiff and identifies itself as the final will, places the defendant in a stronger position. Unless the plaintiff can successfully prove that the 2003 will is invalid due to forgery, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity, the court is likely to uphold it as the testator’s final and enforceable testament.

In case you need my assistance, i can be contacted through kaanoon

Dear Sir/Madam

It is suggested that having an original copy or the certifiied copy is almost same and there would be no much effect of the same. 

 - Since, there is a Will written on 2005 then the last Will have no effect ,and it is considered as cancelled. 

- Further, if the suit is pending before the Court , then the Plaintiff can produce the witnesses to prove his Will and to nullify the Will written in 2005