Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 41
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD ATKINSON, LORD SUMNER, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
RAM GOPAL LAL - Appellant
Versus
AIPNA KUNWAR - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : June 30, 1922. Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
To prove a disputed will, trustworthy evidence of execution and a clear history of the document's discovery are essential; visual similarity of a signature is insufficient without material witnesses to prove the act of signing.
Headnote:(A) Proof of Will - A will is a solemn document requiring trustworthy and effective evidence to establish compliance with legal forms. In cases of dispute, the best procurable evidence of the signature must be furnished.
(B) Evidence of Signature - Visual similarity of a signature to known specimens is of little value in the absence of material witnesses to prove the actual act of signing.
(C) Validity of Document - The history of a will, including when, where, and by whom it was found, and the reasons for any delay in its production, is material to determining its validity.
Facts of the case:
A widow applied for probate of a will purportedly executed by her deceased husband. The will contained provisions for religious expenses, the establishment of a school, and the distribution of property among the widow and nephews. The will was challenged as a forgery by a male agnatic relation. It was noted that the document was not produced immediately after death, and initial mutation proceedings for the estate were conducted on the basis of inheritance. Several attesting witnesses were either not called or their testimony was deemed unreliable.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no trustworthy evidence to establish the signature of the deceased. The failure to call key witnesses and the complete absence of evidence regarding the discovery and production of the document indicated that the will was not genuine.
Issues: Whether the document propounded by the widow was the genuine last will and testament of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the solemn nature of a will necessitates rigorous proof of execution. Where material witnesses are absent and the history of the document's discovery is unexplained, the mere appearance of a signature as genuine is insufficient to override the suspicion of forgery.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs and the judgment of the District Judge restored.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 28, 1919) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Azamgarh.
The sole question upon the appeal was whether a will, dated January 25, 1915, propounded by the respondent was the last will and testament of her deceased husband Bijai Singh. The District Judge held that the will was a forgery, but that decision was reversed upon appeal to the High Court.
The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
1922. May 13. De Gruyther K.C., and Dube for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
June 30. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD BUCKMASTER. On March 3, 1915, Babu Bijai Singh died, and on September 13, 1915, his widow, who is the present respondent, applied, through Baj Bahadur Singh, as her attorney, for the grant of probate of a document dated January 25, 1915, which purported to be the last will of her deceased husband.
Objection was taken to the grant by the appellant, one of the male agnatic relations of the deceased and one of his reversioners in the event of intestacy, on the ground that the will put forward was never executed by the deceased but was a fabrication and a forgery. The learned District Judge before whom this issue was heard decided in favour of the appellant. His judgment was reversed by the High Court at Allahabad, exercising appellate jurisdiction, and hence the present appeal.
The respondent has not been represented before their Lordships, and they have consequently examined with especial care all the evidence in the case, and considered all the objections that could be taken to the appellants argument, but they are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be supported for reasons with which they will proceed to deal.
The deceased resided in the village of Nizamabad, in the District of Azamgarh. He was about seventy-four years of age at the time of his death, and had for some short time previously been in weak health and afflicted with paralysis. His male agnatic relations who in the event of intestacy would inherit his property, subject to the widows estate, lived with him in the same compound. He had no children, and his other relations were the four sons of his sister, one of whom was Baj Bahadur Singh, who had for some twenty-four years before the testators death kept a druggists shop at Lucknow. The earliest piece of evidence bearing upon the present dispute is that of a man called Rameshar Prasad, who is headmaster of a school at Hardoi. He stated that at a date which the High Court fixed at the end of December, 1914, though the witness himself does not specify the exact time, he was informed orally by a man named Babu Manohar Lai, who was not called as a witness, that Babu Bijai Singh wanted to start a school to teach English, Hindi, and mathematics, and asked witness to prepare a scheme. This he did, and sent it to the deceased, who appears to have acknowledged it, but nothing further took place. The bearing of this evidence upon the dispute is due to the fact that the document under consideration expresses a desire to establish such a school and makes provision for its expenses; but this amounts to no more than that a portion of the will complied with what appears to have been a former wish of the deceased, a wish which may well have been known to the people who put forward the document. There is no further evidence at all with regard to the matter until the date when the will was prepared and purports to have been executed. The drawing up of the document was undoubtedly done by one Ram Ratan Lal, and his evidence is that it was prepared on January 25. It is stated, however, that it was executed on the following day—the 26th—and it purports to bear the signature of the deceased affixed in the presence of seven witnesses. It is a will of substantial length. It contains no reference whatever to the male agnatic relations of the deceased, but begins by a eulogy of his sisters sons. It
