1. Grant of probate of an unregistered will under Section 276, Indian Succession Act, challenged as unnatural. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 872
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
E.Madhavi Pallikkaramma
Versus
K.V.Prabhakaran Nair
Case No. : 3251 of 1989
Date of Decision : 4/26/00
Important Points
Disinheritance of a spouse in a Will does not inherently constitute suspicious circumstances or render the Will unnatural, particularly if justified by property ownership structures or the spouse's self-sufficiency, and concurrent findings of lower courts on the Will's validity generally warrant no interference.
Subject
Civil Law - Succession and Wills
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 276 - Constitution of India - Article 136 - Probate of Will - Suspicious circumstances - Disinheritance of spouse - Not necessarily unnatural if property belongs to a specific family branch and the spouse is self-sufficient - Concurrent findings of trial court and High Court on the validity of the Will not to be disturbed unless based on perversity. (Paras 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
A petition for the grant of probate of an unregistered Will, jointly executed by two co-testators, was filed. The Will bequeathed a school and other properties to members of a collateral family branch and a dependent. The probate was contested by the widow of one co-testator on the grounds that the Will was unnatural, as it completely disinherited the spouses of both co-testators.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the disinheritance of the spouses was not unnatural because the testators were dealing with specific family branch properties which, if bequeathed to a spouse, would eventually revert to family members who are strangers to said spouse. Furthermore, evidence indicated that the surviving spouse was capable of taking care of herself and the other spouse was not living with the testator at the time of execution.
Issues: Whether the disinheritance of the spouses of the co-testators constituted "suspicious circumstances" that would render the Will unnatural and void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exclusion of a spouse from a Will does not automatically render it suspicious or unnatural, especially when there is a rational explanation involving the nature of property ownership or the spouse's self-sufficiency. Where trial and appellate courts have concurrently found the Will to be proved based on evidence, such findings do not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Civil Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A petition for the grant of probate of an unregistered Will, jointly executed by two co-testators, was filed. The Will bequeathed a school and other properties to members of a collateral family branch and a dependent. The probate was contested by the widow of one co-testator on the grounds that the Will was unnatural, as it completely disinherited the spouses of both co-testators.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the disinheritance of the spouses was not unnatural because the testators were dealing with specific family branch properties which, if bequeathed to a spouse, would eventually revert to family members who are strangers to said spouse. Furthermore, evidence indicated that the surviving spouse was capable of taking care of herself and the other spouse was not living with the testator at the time of execution.
Issues: Whether the disinheritance of the spouses of the co-testators constituted "suspicious circumstances" that would render the Will unnatural and void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exclusion of a spouse from a Will does not automatically render it suspicious or unnatural, especially when there is a rational explanation involving the nature of property ownership or the spouse's self-sufficiency. Where trial and appellate courts have concurrently found the Will to be proved based on evidence, such findings do not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Civil Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Will unnatural due to disinheritance of spouse; suspicious circumstances warrant interference. (Para 5 )
3. Disinheritance of spouse not unnatural when dealing with Tavazhi property and spouse capable of self-care. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Disinheritance of a spouse in a will dealing with joint family property is not a suspicious circumstance per se. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order confirming grant of probate upheld. (Para 9 )
6. Is the disinheritance of a spouse a suspicious circumstance invalidating a will?
No, disinheritance is not unnatural if the testator is dealing with Tavazhi property and the spouse is capable of self-care. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Can a third party challenge the disinheritance of a testator's spouse in probate proceedings?
No, the disinherited spouse did not complain; a caveator cannot make a grievance on another's behalf. (Para 8 )
(1) THIS appeal is on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
(2) THE Appellants have challenged the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala confirming the grant of probate of Will as ordered by the trial court. The Respondents herein had filed original petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of an unregistered Will alleged to have been jointly executed by one Ummamma Amma and Kunhiraman Nair, on 14.10.1966. Ummamma Amma died on 3.11.1966 and Kunhiraman Nair, the other co-testator died on 18.7.1978. The deceased were members of the Kunnath Tavazhi. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 were members of a collateral branch of the Tavazhi while 8th Respondent was maid servant and was dependent of the co-testator Kunhiraman Nair. Kunhiraman Nair was the manager of a school. He had several other properties. Under the Will the school and its site had been bequeathed to Respondent nos. 1 and 2 . The other properties were given to Respondent nos. 1 to 7 with direction to pay the 8th Respondent an amount of Rs. 250/-. The caveator to the probate proceedings is the widow of Kunhiraman Nair. The husband of the other co-testator Ummamma Amma was stated to be alive when she died. He did not file any caveat.
(3) AFTER hearing the contesting parties the trial court, in the light of the evidence recorded before it, came to the conclusion that the Will was proved and was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances and hence granted the probate. The Division Bench of the High Court, after carefully re-appreciating the evidence, came to the same conclusion.
(4) IN our view, the said conclusion is well supported by evidence on record and calls for no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the present proceedings.
(5) LEARNED senior Counsel for the Appellants, however, vehemently contended that the said Will gave legacy which prima facie was unnatural in character. He submitted that Kunhiraman Nair had totally disinherited his wife who was staying with him for number of years and bequeathed nothing in her favour. Similarly, the other co-testator Ummamma Amma had given nothing to her husband in the Will. These are suspicious circumstances.
(6) THE High Court has noted while agreeing with the trial court that the testator was dealing with Tavazhi properties and if any properties were given to testators spouse they would ultimately have gone to the family members who would be strangers to her husband. If the wife was capable of taking care of herself out of her properties, there had been no necessity for making any provision for that purpose. As she had been living with her husband, she would need no extraneous assistance during her lifetime.
(7) FOR all these reasons, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that nothing was unnatural in not giving any properties to her.
(8) SO far as the grievance regarding disinheritance of the husband of another cotestator Ummamma Amma was concerned, it has to be noted that even though she was suffering from cancer it could not be said that she was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of the Will. Even the husband had made no grievance at any stage nor was he staying with the wife who was living with her brother, the other co-testator. Secondly even though in probate proceedings public notice would have been issued the husband never had made such a grievance regarding this alleged disinheritance by his wife. The caveator-wife of the other co-testator could not make a grievance on his behalf.
(9) FOR all these reasons, therefore, it could not be said that the Wilt was of unnatural or was executed under any suspicious circumstances. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in these proceedings. The Civil Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
