2006(1) Supreme 44
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Mathew Oommen —Appellant
versus
Suseela Mathew —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2034 of 2003
Decided on 3-1-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L. Vishwanath Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Abhay Kumar, R. Gopala Krishnan and Subramonium Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Advocate, Biswanath Agrrawalla and Romy Chacko, Advocates.
Judgment
Arun Kumar, J.—The appellant filed a petition for grant of letters of administration in respect of a Will said to have been executed by his father Late K.O. Mathew. K.O. Mathew was a practicing advocate of the local Bar. The will in question is said to have been executed on 15.10.1984. The testator died on 24.10.1984. The appellant is the sole beneficiary under the will. The testator was survived by three children i.e. son, the appellant herein and two daughters named Suseela, the contesting respondent, and Leela. Both the daughters were married during the lifetime of the testator and admittedly had been well provided for at the time of their marriage by the father. Respondent is the only contestant, who herself is an officer in the local Electricity Board while her husband was an officer in the Army. The other daughter Leela is a practicing doctor with MD qualification. The second daughter is not a party to the proceedings. She never contested the Will of her father. The parties are Christians and were governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1917. Under this Act when a daughter is married and she is given Rs. 5000/- or more at the time of marriage, she has no right of inheritance in her father’s estate. Respondent Suseela had admitted in her statement as DW 1 that her father had given her Rs. 30,000/- and 45 gold sovereigns at the time of her marriage. However, a question of validity of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1917 had been raised and a writ petition in this behalf was pending in this Court at the relevant time. The testator who was himself a lawyer knew about the pendency of the writ petition challenging the said Act and was therefore, aware of the fact that in the event of the said Act being declared illegal, his daughters would become entitled to share in his estate. This could be the reason that he executed the Will in question.
2. The Will Exhibit A1 is hand written and is on a letter head of the testator. It is in the hand writing of his junior named George Vallakalil. It bears the signature of the testator as well as of one Oommen who has signed as a witness. Both the witnesses to the Will are the distant relations of the testator.
3. The appellant applied for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the Will. On publication of the notice of the petition for grant of letters of administration with respect to the Will, respondent Suseela filed her objection opposing the grant of letters of administration. The propounder of the Will is the son of the testator while the contestant is the daughter of the testator. Thus both the parties are real brother and sister. The trial Court held that Will Exhibit A 1 appears to have been written in a natural flow. It refuted the stand of the objector that it had been prepared on a blank signed paper left by K.O. Mathew. The interesting part is that signatures of the testator on the Will are not disputed by the respondent. Her only case is that the Will has been prepared on a signed blank letter pad. The trial Court rejected the theory of fabrication of the Will. The trial Court observed that the testator was a leading advocate and it was untenable that he would leave blank signed letter hea
Court held the Will to be genuine and granted the letters of administration with respect to the Will Exhibit A1.
4. By a strange and wholly untenable reasoning the High Court set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court and rejected the Will. According to the High Court, the language of the Will is not normal. Secondly, the High Court observed that if the testator wanted to execute a Will he could have done so in a proper manner. Thirdly, the High Court observed that in view of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1917, the testator who was himself an advocate, knew that there was no need for a Will, why should testator make it?
5. We have perused the photocopy of the Will which is on record. It is a short Will and is reproduced as under
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.