When writing a will, can the main heir also be the one who set it up?

She stood to inherit the most. She also helped draft the will. Now the court says that combination alone can make the whole thing suspicious.

Two women faced each other across a disputed will in a probate courtroom. The air was still, the only sound the rustle of paper as the judge opened the file. One woman, the propounder—the person seeking to prove the will is valid—stood to gain a substantial inheritance. The other, the challenger, argued that the main beneficiary's active role in setting up the will should throw the entire document into doubt. The court agreed—but with a crucial distinction. Active involvement alone is not fatal. It is what the beneficiary does with that involvement that matters.

The case, Kavita Kamra v. Pamela Mehta, has become a landmark for anyone who drafts a will where the person who stands to gain the most also helped create it.

When the will itself becomes the evidence

The challenger's argument was direct: the propounder's active role in the execution process constituted undue influence—pressure or manipulation that overrides the testator's free choice. The courtroom fell silent as the challenger's counsel laid out the facts: the propounder was not just the primary recipient of the estate; she had been present at every step of the will's creation. The will document lay on the table, its signatures visible—the testator's shaky hand, the witnesses' names below. But the witnesses, when questioned, gave contradictory statements. One could not remember where the signing took place. Another admitted the propounder had called him to come witness the document.

The court did not accept the challenger's argument in its raw form. Instead, it drew a finer line. The judge's voice carried the doctrine: the unreliability of the attesting witnesses—the people who sign to confirm the will was properly executed—the contradictions in their statements, or evidence that the major beneficiary played an active and major role in the execution of a will which would confer on them substantial benefit, would give rise to suspicious circumstances.

It is not the involvement itself that is suspicious. It is the involvement plus something else—a pattern of control, a lack of independent witnesses, a will that seems unnatural or unfair given the testator's relationships. The judge's finger traced the line in the judgment: "An active role combined with substantial benefit casts doubt on the authenticity of the testator's free volition."

The broader definition of suspicion

The court in Kavita Kamra did not create this principle from scratch. It relied on a well-established line of reasoning from Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Ors., a Supreme Court decision that broadly outlined what counts as a "suspicious circumstance" in will disputes. The file on the judge's desk contained both judgments, their pages worn from handling.

In that case, the court noted that suspicious circumstances may relate to three things: the genuineness of the testator's signature, the condition of the testator's mind at the time of execution, or the disposition made in the will being "unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances." The judge's voice was measured, deliberate: "Any circumstance that impairs the confidence of the court in the soundness of the will must be explained."

The key phrase is "unnatural, improbable or unfair." Consider a will that leaves everything to one child while ignoring others who were equally close to the testator—that is a red flag. A will that benefits the person who wrote it more than anyone else—that is another red flag. A will signed by witnesses who cannot agree on basic facts about the signing—that is a third. The court in Indu Bala Bose made clear that the propounder has a duty to remove all such suspicious features. If they cannot, the will fails.

What the propounder must prove

This is where the practical impact of Kavita Kamra becomes clear. The court did not say that an active beneficiary can never propound a will. It said that when the beneficiary is active, the burden of proof shifts. The propounder must provide a thorough explanation for every suspicious circumstance.

What does that explanation look like in a real courtroom? Imagine the propounder's counsel standing to address the bench, a stack of documents in hand. "My lord, the testator was independently advised by a lawyer who had no connection to the beneficiary. Here is the lawyer's file—the handwritten notes from the consultation, the testator's own instructions in his own hand." The judge examines the notes, the ink faded but legible. "We have testimony from multiple independent witnesses who confirm the testator's mental capacity and free will. Here are the medical records showing the testator was of sound mind when the will was signed."

The propounder might also show proof that the testator had a rational reason for the unusual disposition—a child who was already provided for, or a child who had been estranged. The court's logic is rooted in a simple principle: a will must be the testator's free choice, not the beneficiary's. When the beneficiary is also the architect, the court needs extra assurance that the choice was truly the testator's.

Consider the burden-shifting in action. The challenger's counsel rises first, pointing to the propounder's active role: "My lord, the propounder was present at every meeting with the lawyer. She made phone calls to arrange the witnesses. She drove the testator to the registrar's office." The judge nods, noting the pattern. Then the propounder's counsel must respond, not with denials, but with evidence that breaks the pattern. "The testator met the lawyer alone on three separate occasions. Here are the lawyer's diary entries, the testator's signature on each consultation note. The witnesses were neighbours who had no relationship with the propounder. They confirm the testator gave clear instructions without any prompting." The courtroom waits as the judge reads each entry, weighing the credibility of the explanation against the weight of the suspicion.

Why this matters

For lawyers who draft wills, Kavita Kamra is a warning: if your client is also the main beneficiary, you need to build a record that proves the testator's independence. Document every step—the testator's instructions, the lawyer's independent advice, the signing in the presence of reliable witnesses who have no stake in the outcome. The will itself, with its signatures and dates, becomes a piece of evidence that must tell a story of free choice.

For challengers, the case provides a clear framework: show the beneficiary's active role, show the substantial benefit, and then point to any additional red flags—unreliable witnesses, contradictions, unnatural dispositions. The combination creates a presumption that the propounder must rebut.

For the testator, the lesson is even simpler: if you want your will to survive a challenge, do not let the person who stands to gain the most control the process. Get independent legal advice. Use witnesses who have nothing to gain. Make sure your wishes are documented clearly and freely.

THE PLAY: When the main beneficiary also helped draft the will, the propounder must provide independent evidence—separate from the beneficiary's own testimony—that the testator acted freely and with full mental capacity.

The court ended where it began: with a will, a beneficiary, and a question that only the evidence could answer. The judge closed the file, the courtroom fell silent, and the law stood firm: the beneficiary who builds the will must also build the proof that it was never theirs to begin with.