SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 7

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.

Important point
Scribe of a Will could also be one of the attesting witness on Will.

Headnote:Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 273 and 276—Petition for grant of letters of administration in respect of a Will—Will was executed in petitioner’s favour by his father an advocate by profession on 15-10-1984 and testator died on 24-10-1984—Petition contested by one of the two daughters of testator—Will was in hand written and was on a letter head of the testator, scribed by junior of testator who was one of the two attesting witnesses—Trial Court held the Will to be genuine and granted the letters of administration—High Court set aside the judgment and rejected the Will—Appeal—Nothing unnatural in a senior advocate of advance age to ask his junior advocate to scribe will as desired by testator—As a senior advocate testator knew that validity of Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1917 had been questioned in Supreme Court, it was all the more important for testator to make the Will—Both attesting witnesses appeared and supported the Will—No requirement of law that a scribe could not be an attesting witness —Impugned judgment of High Court could not be sustained and that of the trial Court restored. (Paras 6 to 9)

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




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top