If there are multiple Wills written by the same testator, the last Will can only be taken into consideration.
Now you say that both the Wills were written on the same date, then the beneficiaries have to enforce both together through court, whereas the court after hearing both the cases together and may conclude on the basis of one Will only
In supreme court in the case of Baghwan kaur Vs. Kartar kaur dated 28.04.1994, irt was argued thus:
So far as this point is concerned, it has to be kept in view that both the trial court as well as the High Court have concurrently held on facts that the deceased testator was in a sound disposing state of mind and was capable of executing the will and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. Merely because Defendant 9 was present at the time of execution of both the wills, it could not be said that it was a suspicious circumstance. It has also to be kept in view that on the very same day i.e on 1-7-1955 the testator Sivasankaran Pillai executed two wills, one the disputed will (Ex. B-487) in favour of Defendant 9 so far as Schedule C kattalai properties and their management were concerned. But simultaneously at the same sitting on the same day, he executed another will (Ex. B-488) in favour of the appellants and Defendants 5 and 6, his own sons so far as his personal properties were concerned. Both the wills were got registered simultaneously. It is easy to visualise that if the will in favour of the appellants and Defendants 5 and 6 executed by the testator on the very same day can be found to be legal and valid though held by the trial court to have not been acted upon, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the same testator, who was in a sound disposing state of mind, while executing a valid will (Ex. B-488) in favour of the appellants and Defendants 5 and 6 would lose his testamentary capacity while executing on the same day at the same time another disputed will (Ex. B-487) in favour of Defendant 9. The appellants cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. Of course, Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not rely upon the will (Ex. B-488) as it is not acted upon but that is neither here nor there. Even if the will in favour of the appellants might not have been acted upon for reasons best known to them after the demise of the testator, that would not affect due execution of the said will by the testator nor would it affect his testamentary capacity qua the disputed will executed on the same day and got registered by the testator simultaneously with the will (Ex. B-488) in favour of the appellants and Defendants 5 and 6. Even though an attempt was made to show that the testator was unwell and confined to bed and the plaintiffs went to the extreme and submitted that the testator was a lunatic, the evidence on record shows to the contrary. He might be old and
suffering from illness but his testamentary capacity is not shown to be affected adversely in any manner when on the same day he executed two wills and got them registered. The findings reached about testamentary capacity of the testator by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are well sustained on evidence and cannot be said to be suffering from any patent error of law or being perverse which would call for our interference in appeal under article 136 of the constitution of india. Reliance tried to be placed by learned counsel, Shri Sampath for the appellants on the three decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur 1994 5 SCC 135, H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 and Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai AIR 1965 SC 354 also cannot be of any assistance to him as the fact-situations which fell for consideration in the aforesaid decisions were entirely different and suspicious circumstances considered in these decisions are found to be totally absent, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned.11. Mr Sampath tried to highlight certain circumstances, which according to him, were highly suspicious. We may briefly refer to them. He submitted that under normal circumstances any reasonable person like the testator, would not disinherit his own children, i.e, Appellant 1 and his brothers nor would he prefer a total stranger as a sole legatee of Schedule C properties. This contention is totally devoid of force. The reason is obvious. So far as Schedule C properties were concerned, they were not personal properties of Sivasankaran Pillai. They were endowed properties belonging to the temple. Mere right of management was given to him by earlier manager Pitchammal and it is this right of management which was being entrusted by him to Defendant 9, who was found to be a capable manager. So far as the personal properties are concerned, the testator executed another will (Ex. B-488) on the same day in favour of his own children, including the appellants. He had, therefore, not disinherited them qua his own personal properties. The second suspicious circumstance highlighted by Shri Sampath was to the effect that Defendant 9, being a beneficiary of the will, had actively participated in its execution. That is neither here nor there. Even despite his active participation, Defendant 9 saw to it that the testator bequeathed his personal properties in favour of his own sons, namely, the appellants and Defendants 5 and 6.
For the convenient administration of his estate, the law permits a person to make more than one will in respect of different items of his property and to appoint different executors in respect of different parts of his property
To remove confusion and to avoid litigation if any in this regard in future, he can combine both the properties in the same will mentioning them as two schedule of properties.