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

Last will of 2001 supersedes will executed in 2001 

further since testator has already sold all his properties during  his lifetime the will cannot be executed 

If the will is not proved all the said transactions will not set aside and he will have to make good the loss to other parties 

Since both wills (1997 and 2001) have already been proved valid in court, the remaining issue is the effect of sale of properties mentioned in the 1997 will during the testator’s lifetime, and how that impacts Party A’s claim in the final decision.

Legally, a will operates only on the property owned by the testator at the time of death, not on property once owned in the past. If, between 1997 and 2001, the testator sold all the properties that were bequeathed under the 1997 will, then those properties ceased to form part of the estate. A bequest of property that no longer exists in the testator’s ownership is said to be adeemed.

The effect of this is decisive against Party A.

Even though the 1997 will is valid as a document, it becomes ineffective to the extent of those properties, because there was nothing left for it to operate upon at the time of death. Party A cannot claim any right, title, or interest in properties that were lawfully alienated by the testator during his lifetime. A will does not restrict the testator’s absolute right to sell, gift, or otherwise deal with his property while alive.

Once it is established that:

• the properties mentioned in the 1997 will were sold by the testator himself, and

• those properties were not repurchased or substituted in a manner traceable to the same bequest,

Party A’s claim under the 1997 will fails completely in respect of those properties, irrespective of the validity of the will.

As for the challenge to the 2001 will, since:

• the 2001 will has also been proved valid, and

• the 1997 will had already been rendered inoperative due to prior sale of its subject matter,

Party A gains no substantive advantage merely by proving the 1997 will. The court’s final decision will turn on what property remained with the testator at the time of death and how that property is disposed of under the last operative will, i.e., the 2001 will.

In practical terms, Point No. 1 is fatal to Party A’s case. Even if Party A succeeds in attacking the 2001 will on some technical ground, he still cannot inherit property that the testator did not own at death. Courts are very clear that succession cannot revive ownership over alienated property.

To summarise clearly:

• Sale of all properties mentioned in the 1997 will extinguishes Party A’s claim under that will

• Validity of the 1997 will becomes largely academic

• The 2001 will governs whatever property, if any, remained at death

• Party A cannot succeed merely because his will is earlier or valid

Unless Party A can show that some property covered by the 1997 will still existed in the estate at death, or that the sale itself was void or sham (which is a very high threshold), the final decision will go against him on merits.

As per Indian succession Act, under Section 70, a later will revokes an earlier will to the extent of inconsistency, unless the later will expressly says otherwise. So even though both wills are proved valid, the 2001 Will operates last in time.

As per Sections 152–153 of the act,  if the testator disposes of the property during his lifetime, then the bequest of that specific property becomes infructuous. 

The moment the testator sold those properties, the 1997 will became infructuous, the beneficiary A lost all enforceable rights under the 1997 Will.  Even if the 2001 will did not exist, Party A still cannot claim sold properties.

Even though both wills being proved valid, it cannot be considered because the meaning of Will proved means, that it was duly executed, that the Testator had capacity and no fraud/undue influence in the Will. 

However it does not revive property that no longer exists in the testator’s estate.

Therefore the 1997 Will though valid but empty and the 2001 Will is Valid and operative, governing whatever property remained at death. 

Party A's claim is vexatious and speculative and cannot be maintainable in law or facts.  Party A do not have any interests in the bequest made in the 2001 Will, hence the challenge of party A may be dismissed outright or rejected on merits.

SIR/MADAM.

Even if party A challenged the Will of 2001 but the same is of nil effect as the property which he might be claiming, have been sold as per your query. Also, when the second WILL is executed, the first one becomes of NIL effect. 

The last Will alone shall prevail. More so in this case, as there is nothing left out of the 1997 Will.

Dear client,
In the instant case, it is important to note that a person in his lifetime can execute more than one will; however, it is the last testamentary will that will have a binding effect over the previous ones. So in the instant case, it is the will that is executed in 2001 that has a binding effect and it is not the will executed in 1997 that has a standing. Also it is important to note that the previous will is revoked by the actions of the deceased by the sale of the properties that are listed in the 1997 will. Thereby that will have no effect. Thereby the Party A cannot bring a claim over your property or your rightful claim in the will effected in 2000.

I hope this answer helps. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.