According to paragraph 1 of Art. 1118 of the Civil Code, as the only way to independently dispose of their own property in the event of death, a will is drawn up. In paragraph 5 of this article, for the first time at the legislative level, the possibility of carrying out this unilateral transaction is recorded. From the moment of death (opening of the inheritance), the owner forever loses the right to make adjustments to the conditions for the disposal of property or to take a new action that determines the fate of the values. In this regard, the invalidity of the will, amendment and cancellation of the will act as extremely undesirable circumstances. They have a direct impact on the citizen's ability to dispose at his discretion of property belonging to him. Further in the article will be considered in more detail the invalidity of the will, amendment and cancellation of the will. 
General information
In Art. 1118, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, the definition of a will is given. In accordance with the norm, a unilateral transaction is recognized as it, creating the corresponding duties and legal opportunities after the opening of the inheritance. However, it is worth noting that the above definition does not accurately reflect the essence of the concept. The will itself cannot create obligations either before or after the opening of the inheritance. In this case, reference should be made to another article of the Civil Code. In particular, under Art. 155 a unilateral transaction, which is a will, creates the corresponding obligations only for the person who committed it. The participation of other parties is allowed only by agreement between them or in other cases provided for by law.
The specifics of the occurrence of obligations
Given the above, the assumption that as “special cases established by law” may be articles 1134 (on the executor of the will) and 1137 (on the testament refusal), is considered incorrect. Undoubtedly, within the framework of both the first and second norms, the relevant persons have obligations stipulated by law. But to make a will is not enough. Corresponding obligations appear in case of fulfillment by persons one-way transaction. In particular, the executor of the will must agree to the implementation of the last will, the successor must accept the inheritance, since the obligation established by the testamentary refusal is fulfilled only in this way.
Legal Opportunity
The only right that a will can form after the inheritance is opened (but not in all cases) is the ability, in fact, to take property from the deceased. The will of the owner is aimed at creating the ability to determine at personal discretion the fate of material values. However, to exercise this right, a testament is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In this case, legal actions of other persons corresponding to the will of the owner are also required.
Types of Orders
The Civil Code provides the following list of the main types of will of the testator:
- Indication of successors.
- Establishment of shares for heirs in the transferred property.
- Testament refusal.
- Deprivation of the inheritance of all or some of the successors.
- Testamentary laying.
- The appointment of the contractor. This type of order is considered optional.
In most situations, an indication of the heirs acts as the will of the owner. Relatively testamentary denial in Art. 1137 there is a direct explanation. By analogy, it can be applied to hereditary assignment in accordance with Art. 6. The establishment of shares of successors in property requires the indication of the heirs themselves. In this regard, this type of order can only exist in conjunction with the definition of successors. 
Disinheritance
Regarding this order, the law enforcement practice that exists today is stably based on the fact that the content of the will can be exhausted only by bringing this will without indicating successors. The question arises - is this consistent with the law? According to Art. 1119, in which the definitions of testament freedom are disclosed, there is no doubt a positive answer. The possibility of depriving an inheritance is expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 in the list of main types of disposition. Thus, the law does not explicitly prohibit the exhaustion of a will by this order. At the same time, paragraph 5 of Art. 1118 answers the question above in the negative.
As already noted, the will acts as a unilateral transaction, the obligations and possibilities of which arise after the opening of the inheritance. From this we can draw the following conclusion. A unilateral transaction that does not entail the appearance of duties and rights cannot be considered a will. But the expression of will is recognized as being exhausted by an order on deprivation of inheritance. The only consequence of such a will is the loss by successors of the right to take the property of the deceased into their property under the law. Simply put, such a declaration of will not only does not generate obligations, but also the legal capabilities of the heirs. Such a contradiction may serve as the basis for the invalidity of the will. The nullity of such a transaction is established in Art. 168.
Cancellation, amendment and invalidity of a will
The law provides for the contestation of the will of the deceased in certain situations. The invalidity of the will of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes in Art. 1131. Clause 1 of this article is considered to be analogous to clause 1 of Article 166. In the provisions of Article 1131 the separation of wills into disputable and invalid is given. Moreover, the established definitions do not differ from interpretations regarding other controversial or void transactions. The essential difference between Art. 166 and Art. 1131 stands a circle of persons who can recognize the invalidity of a will and another transaction.
So, according to the first article, the entities may be persons whose list is given in the Civil Code. At the same time, the invalidity of the will can be recognized at the suit of the person whose interests are violated by the disputed expression of will. In the determination of the Constitutional Court, it is noted that the norm provided for in the Code in Art. 1131, fixing the possibility of such persons to appeal the order of the owner, is focused on ensuring their legal protection. Thus, the cancellation, change and invalidity of a will is a requirement that can be presented by a fairly wide range of subjects.
Transaction Nullity Result
As mentioned above, the only legal possibility of a successor after the opening of the inheritance will be, in fact, the acceptance of the property of the deceased into his property and subsequent disposal at his personal discretion. Consequently, the absence of a will is the consequence of the invalidity of the will. If the inheritance was not accepted in such a situation, then this result will be the only one. If the successor has entered into his rights, a different rule will apply. In particular, this case is provided for in Art. 168. This article discusses the situation of inheritance adoption in the absence of legal capacity.Thus, depending on the basis of invalidity, the will can be disputed for one reason or another, and one or another result of the nullity of the transaction occurs. Section V of the Code does not establish specific rules regarding this issue. In this regard, the provisions of Chapter 9 regarding the nullity of transactions could apply to the consequences arising from the invalidity of a will. However, its rules apply to contracts. 
Subject Requirements
Persons who advocate the invalidity of a will, judicial practice shall be considered as plaintiffs. These entities may demand from the citizen, who accepted the inheritance by negligible expression, the return of all received according to the rules contained in Chapter 60 of the Code. This provision shall apply when an individually defined object acts as the subject of succession. Claiming the thing is carried out by sending a vindication claim. Then you should take into account the comments that are given in the Resolution by the Plenum of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court, explaining some of the problems of the invalidity of the will.
Explanations
In the above Resolution, in clause 34, in particular, it is explained that a dispute regarding the return of property that is a consequence of a contractual relationship or arises from the consequences of the transaction’s nullity (invalidity) should be resolved according to the legislation, the rules of which govern precisely these specific interactions between subjects. If there is no such relationship between the persons, then the case must be considered in accordance with Art. 301, 302. When accepting an inheritance under a null testament, the consequences of the invalidity of a transaction are applicable. However, there are no rules governing the results of such unilateral relations, the recovery of property from the owner under the provisions of Art. 301 is considered quite reasonable.
Rules for the interpretation of expression of will
This is another point with which the validity of the will may be related. This refers to the rules established by Article 1132. In accordance with it, when interpreting a will by a judge, performers or a notary public, the literal meaning of the expressions and words present in it is taken into account. If there is ambiguity regarding any provision of the will, it is compared with other paragraphs and the meaning of the document as a whole. Moreover, the most complete realization of the supposed will of the deceased is required.
Grammatical method of interpretation
Article 1132 establishes two methods for explaining the will of the deceased with reference to the relevant authorized entities. The main method is called grammatical or literal. In this case, the interpreter takes into account only what is written in the document. That is, it takes into account the literal meaning of the expressions and words that make up the content of the will. Thus, the legislation requires the authorized subject to proceed from the fact that the deceased wrote only what he wanted to write, and nothing else. 
Systematic interpretation
This method is the determination of the literal meaning of a provision in a will by comparing it with other points and the general sense of will. This interpretation is used when there is ambiguity in understanding the contents of the document. In this case, the law obliges the authorized person to motivate the transition from one method to another. That is, the interpreter must indicate what exactly is not clear to him in the document and for what reason. It is especially important to carry out this justification procedure if the person concerned has filed a claim demanding to recognize the invalidity of the will. The absence in the motivated decision of a justification of the reason for the transition to a systematic interpretation allows us to consider such an act unreasonable.This, in turn, acts as the basis for contesting and repealing it.
Art. 1132 and 431
These articles establish the rules of interpretation. However, in Art. 1132 norms concern the will, and in Art. 431 - of the contracts. Between these provisions there is a significant difference in the circle of subjects. In particular, under Art. 431 only the court can act as the sole interpreter. In addition, the norm does not stipulate 2, as in Art. 1132, and 3 ways of explanation. The first two at the same time in their description and content are similar to those provided for regarding the will. The third method is the so-called historical. In paragraph 2 of Art. 431 it is indicated that in the case where the rules of part 1, providing for a systematic and literal version of the explanation, do not allow an objective understanding of the content, it is necessary to find out the actual general will of the parties to the agreement taking into account the purpose of its conclusion.
All existing circumstances are taken into account. Among them are those that preceded the signing of the document: correspondence, negotiations, the practice established during the interaction of the parties, the customs of turnover, as well as the subsequent actions of the participants. Part 2 of Art. 431 allows the court, interpreting the contract, to go beyond its content and take into account other circumstances. In Art. 1132 legislation does not provide such an opportunity to the parties to the dispute. Thus, the norm limits the right of the interpreter to take into account anything other than the text of the will. This provision seems quite reasonable in relation to such entities as a notary public and performer. At the same time, the court is deprived of the possibility of a “historical interpretation”. According to some authors, such a limitation seems inappropriate. They explain their position by the fact that when considering a hereditary dispute, the statutory conditions for the invalidity of a will do not always allow an exhaustive resolution of the matter. In this regard, the authorized body often faces the need to take into account a number of other circumstances that are beyond the text of the document expressing the will of the deceased, and are significant for its objective understanding. Thus, no circumstance is a ground for the invalidity of a will preceding its preparation. 
Important point
A reference to what is indicated in Art. 1132 of the Code on the need to ensure the most complete implementation of the alleged will of the deceased, the law allows for the consideration of circumstances that are beyond the scope of the will, it can hardly be considered justified. This is due to a number of considerations. In particular, the guidance given above refers to a systematic version of the interpretation of the text, in which the interpreter is based solely on the points of the will. In addition, under the above assumption, the possibility of a more expanded explanation of the essence of the content of the will would be provided to both the notary and the performer. This, in turn, is not permitted by law.
Invalidity of a will in Roman law
First of all, a brief description of the inheritance in ancient times should be given. Not any disposition of property was recognized as a will, but only the one in which the successor was indicated. The classical doctrine required that the appointment be given at the beginning of the will. The designation of the successor served as an essential part of the order. Cases of the invalidity of the will took place if the declaration of will contained exhaustive instructions about to whom and what part of the property was transferred, but there was no named definition of heirs. Nevertheless, the appointment of the successor may not have been exhausted. The testament could appoint guardians over young successors, contain refusals. 
Circumstances for the realization of the will
To make a will in Rome, a special "ability" was needed. She was not endowed with legally incapable persons (spenders, minors, mentally ill and others), convicted of some defamatory crimes, etc. In accordance with the provisions in force at that time, a testator was set a restriction. It consisted in the fact that he should not pass over his relatives ("subservient") in silence. This meant that he needed to go appoint them heirs, or strip them of succession, even if there was no good reason for it. The will was drawn up at a public meeting. In this regard, relatives could count on the testator not to deprive them of succession without justification under pain of universal censure. The exclusion of sons from the order was carried out by name, daughters could not be called specifically. Failure to comply with this order entailed the invalidity of the will. By law, in such situations, the inheritance was opened in relation to all subjects.
Mandatory (minimum) share
In ancient times, the testator had an unlimited ability to dispose of property. However, in the process of the decomposition of the patriarchal family and the loss of the former severity and simplicity of morals, the testament began to exercise their right so that material values were sometimes transferred to absolutely unauthorized persons. At the same time, the relatives of the testator who made a feasible contribution to the property were left with nothing. This served as introducing into the law certain restrictions on freedom of expression. In particular, an obligatory share was established. As life has shown, the formal requirement that was addressed to the testator to appoint successors or to deprive them of their inheritance did not protect the legitimate interests of these individuals. Thus, the judicial practice has established that it is not enough just to indicate in the will of specific persons taking property. It was necessary to establish a known minimum (mandatory share). If the testator did not comply with this requirement, the person concerned could file a claim with a request to recognize the invalidity of the will. This requirement was justified by the fact that such an order violated the moral obligations of the property owner. If motivation was recognized as motivated, it was assumed that the testator was "mentally abnormal." This circumstance, in turn, served as the basis for the invalidity of the will. 
Circle of Mandatory Heirs
It was greatly expanded by praetor. Among subjects of law, among others, were emancipated children. Classical doctrine has further expanded the circle of obligatory successors. Thus, ascendant and descendant relatives, as well as half-blood and full-sister sisters and brothers of the testator, had the right to a certain minimum. The latter was the case if the defiled person was appointed as the successor. If the mandatory share was not included in the order for a good reason, then the will remained in full force and effect. In other situations, the expression of will was considered null and void.