Back
1919 Supreme(SC) 76
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge , Phillimore, Justice Lords Atkinson , JJ.
Bindeshri Prasad and another -Appellant
Versus
Mst. Baisakha Bibi and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 07-11-1919
T.L. Wilson and Co., Nevill, Rogers , Barrow, W. Garth, B. Dube, DeGruyther
The propounder of a will bears the onus of proving its genuineness. A will is invalid if surrounded by suspicious circumstances—such as the loss of the original, unusual signatures, and absence of key witnesses—that the propounder fails to explain.
Headnote:(A) Succession Law - Wills - Onus of Proof - The onus of establishing that a propounded will is the genuine will of the deceased rests on the party propounding the document. Where the document is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove those suspicions to prove the will's authenticity.
(B) Suspicious Circumstances - Factors such as the loss of the original document to prevent signature comparison, the use of an unusual signature not found in genuine documents, the exclusion of key witnesses including the scribe and primary beneficiaries, and clauses reflecting unnatural hostility toward nearest male relations constitute suspicious circumstances that cast doubt on the genuineness of a will.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between the nephews of a deceased person and his niece and her sons regarding the succession of the estate. The niece claimed the property based on a will allegedly executed and registered shortly before the deceased's death. The nephews challenged the will as a forgery, asserting that the deceased died intestate and that they, as the nearest male reversioners, were entitled to the estate. The original will was reported lost by one of the beneficiaries during a journey, and a certified copy was produced in evidence. The trial court held the will was not genuine, but the High Court reversed this decision.
Findings of Court:
The court found the will to be unproved due to several suspicious circumstances: the convenient loss of the original document which prevented a comparison of signatures; the unusual prefixing of a title to the signature which was absent in all other genuine documents; the failure to call the scribe and the primary beneficiaries as witnesses; and the inclusion of a clause prohibiting nephews from performing funeral rites, which contradicted evidence of amicable relations between the deceased and his nephews.
Issues: Whether the propounded will was genuine and duly executed by the deceased, and whether the propounders had discharged the onus of proving the will beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: A will cannot be upheld when its genesis is shrouded in mystery, key witnesses are not produced, and the document contains anomalies in signature and content that contradict the known behavior and relationships of the testator. The failure to produce the original document for comparison, coupled with the failure to call the scribe and beneficiaries, creates an insurmountable doubt regarding its authenticity, especially when the identification of the testator before the registrar was based on testimony from a servant of the beneficiary.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
succession
-
hindu law
- mitakshara law
-
wills
-
validity of wills
- suspicious circumstances
-
validity of wills
-
hindu law
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- burden of proof
-
evidence
Mr. Ameer Ali:-
The litigation which has given rise to this appeal relates to the property of one Ram Narain, a Hindu inhabitant of Chunar belonging to the Agarwala caste, who is stated to have died at Mirzapore on the 30th November, 1912, under circumstances to which reference will be made later. Ram Narain had a brother named Lachmi Narain, who had predeceased him, on the 25th October 1911, leaving three sons who are plaintiffs in this suit and appellants before the Board. Ram Narain on his death left him surviving, besides his nephews (the brother's sons), a niece (a sister's daughter) and her three sons all of whom are defendants to the action and respondents on the appeal. It is also in evidence that one of the sons of Ram Narain's sister is still alive.
As already indicated, the contest is between the nephews of Ram Narain on one side and his sister's daughter and her three sons on the other.
After Ram Narain's death there were certain mutation proceedings in the Revenue Courts, and Baisakha, the niece, succeeded in obtaining an order for the registration of her name in the Revenue Register on the strength of a will alleged to have been executed in her favour by Ram Narain two or three days before his death. The plaintiffs (the nephews) thereupon brought the present action to have it declared that the will was a forgery and that Ram Narain died intestate without making any disposition of the property and that subsequently they, as his nearest male reversioners, are entitled to the succession to his estate. The defendants alleged that the impugned document was genuine and duly executed by Ram Narain. On the facts of the case, therefore, the real issue to be tried was the factum of the will. The trial Judge held against its genuineness and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The High Court on the defendants' appeal came to a different conclusion, and accordingly reversed the trial Judge's decree and dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal by the plaintiffs to His Majesty in Council.
It has been contended on their behalf that as their right as the legal heirs of Ram Narain is indisputable, the onus of establishing without reasonable doubt that the will propounded is the will of Ram Narain, rests on the defendants. Before entering upon a consideration of this question, it is necessary to mention a few preliminary facts. The two brothers, Lachmi Narain and Ram Narain, who were subject to the Mitakshara Law, entered into a partition in 1866, when the village of Sheopur fell to Ram Narain and it was subsequently entered in his name in the Revenue Register. At the time of Lachmi Narain's death, he and Ram Narain were living in separate houses though in the same town, viz., Chunar. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that on his death-bed Lachmi Narain besought his brother to take charge of his sons, who were still young and inexperienced, and that Ram Narain consented. In order to carry out faithfully the charge entrusted to him, he, it is further alleged, without abandoning his own house, came to reside in Lachmi Narain's house, and had most of his work done by his nephew's Gomashtas and his accounts kept in the same books. These allegations are supported by a number of witnesses who appear to be respectable people. But over and above that, the plaintiffs have produced their account books, the genuineness of which does not seem to have been challenged, which show receipts and disbursements on account of Ram Narain. Upon these facts the plaintiffs had put forward a legal contention of re-union, but it was abandoned at a very early stage of the trial. It is to be observed that the defendants, who took possession of Ram Narain's house and effects on the night of the 30th November or early the following morning, immediately after his death and cremation, have not produced a single account book of his to contradict the plaintiff's story. Nor have they called Jogeshwar, who they allege was doing Ram Narain's work in his own house. The evidence they
