Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 52
Privy Council
Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Phillimore, Justice Dunedin, JJ.
Motibai Hormusjee Kanga -Appellant
Versus
jamsetjee Hormusjee Kanga -Resopndent
P.C.A. No. 13 of 1923
Decided On : 30-11-1923
O.A. Cayley, T.L Wilson and Co., T. Bucknill, E.B. Raikes, G. Lowndes
The burden of proving testamentary capacity lies with the petitioner, while the burden of proving undue influence lies with the challenger. A will is valid if executed with full comprehension, regardless of the perceived fairness of the disposition, and cannot be invalidated based on mere suspicion.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1865 - Sections 46 and 48 - Testamentary capacity - Probate of will - Onus of proof - The burden of establishing the capacity of the testator lies upon the petitioner - If a will is impugned on the grounds of undue influence, excessive persuasion, or moral coercion, the onus of proof lies upon the caveator - It is essential that the decision of the Court rests upon legal grounds established by legal testimony and not upon mere suspicion.
(B) Volition of Testator - A person may act foolishly or even heartlessly; however, if the person acts with full comprehension of what they are doing, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of their volition.
Facts of the case:
A petition for the probate of a will was filed by the second wife of the deceased. The eldest son of the deceased challenged the will on two grounds: first, that the testator was not mentally or physically competent to make a valid disposition, and second, that the will was executed under the undue influence of the petitioner. The will, which left the entire estate to the wife, was executed and registered shortly before the testator's death. Evidence was provided by a pleader, a registrar, and other disinterested witnesses asserting the testator's sound mind and comprehension, while a doctor and a nurse provided contradictory testimony regarding the testator's mental state.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence establishing the testator's capacity was overwhelming and explicit. The testimony of the disinterested witnesses, including the pleader and the registrar, was accepted, while the testimony of the doctor and the nurse was rejected as inconsistent. It was determined that no undue influence had been proved.
Issues: Whether the testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will and whether the will was obtained through undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once the petitioner establishes the testator's capacity through overwhelming and explicit testimony from disinterested witnesses, the will is valid. The court emphasized that a testator's decision to exclude children or act in a manner perceived as unjust does not invalidate a will if it is executed with full comprehension. Furthermore, an appellate court cannot set aside a finding of fact based on mere suspicion when it is contradicted by legal testimony.
Result: Order of the appellate authority set aside and the decree of the first court restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
succession law
-
wills and probate
- testamentary capacity
- undue influence
-
wills and probate
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- burden of proof
-
evidence
Mr. Ameer Ali. :-
This appeal arises out of an application by the petitioner, a Parsee lady named Mrs. Moti Bai Kanga, in the Court of the District Judge of Bangalore for the probate of a will which she alleges had been executed by her husband shortly before his death, on the 17th August, 1920. The probate was granted by the District Judge, Mr. de Rozario, on the 19th December, 1921. His order was, however, reversed by the Resident of Mysore, Mr. Barton, who appears to have exercised, in his official capacity, the appellate jurisdiction over the Civil Court in Bangalore; hence the appeal to His Majesty in Council.
The testator, Mr. Hormusjee Rustoomjee Kanga, resided in Bangalore, and he is described as having been a turf accountant. He became ill on the 2nd August, 1920, and his medical attendant, a doctor named Mylvaganam, diagnosed his complaint as malaria; but as he became gradually worse, his wife and friends became anxious and called in two other doctors in consultation with Dr. Mylvaganam. They were of opinion that it was not malaria but sceptic poisoning, and they prescribed accordingly. The will is alleged to have been executed in the evening of the 16th August, and was registered by the Sub-Registrar of the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, shortly after its execution. From his name (Mr. Burby) the Sub-Registrar appears to be an Englishman. As his evidence, in their Lordships' opinion, is of the utmost importance in the determination of this appeal and is very short in substance, they propose to quote it in full :-
"I am Sub-Registrar of Assurances, C. and M. Station, Bangalore. I was so in August, 1920. I remember the 16th August, 1920. I was called to the residence of Mr. Kanga and a will was there given to me for registration. I registered it. Exhibit A is the will. It was signed by Mr. Kanga in my presence unaided. I had no suspicion whatever that anything was wrong with the will. I satisfied myself that Mr. Kanga was perfectly right in his mind." He was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the caveator, the eldest son of the deceased, Mr. Kanga. His case was, in the first place, that his father was not competent or in such a condition, mentally or physically, as to make a valid disposition; in the second place, that if it was competently made, it was made under the undue influence of his wife, the petitioner. The petitioner is the second wife of the deceased. He appears to have married her in 1917, and it is in evidence that they lived harmoniously and on good terms.
The attesting witnesses to the will are Aga Abbas Ali, a Mohammedan gentleman residing in Bangalore; a Mr. W. H. Thomson, an Englishman carrying on business in that city; and Dr. Mylvaganam. The facts connected with its execution are testified to by two Hindu gentlemen of the names of Mr. C. Sundara Raja Naidu and Mr. C. N. Suryanarayana Rao, a Parsee of the name of Mr. K. D. Belgaumwala; and a Mr. F. DSouza, a furniture dealer.
As the deceased became gradually worse, it was considered advisable he should execute a will. It is not clear from the evidence from whom the proposition emanated, but there is nothing to show that it was not with his approval. Mr. Suryanarayana Rao, a prominent pleader of the Bangalore Bar, was asked by Mrs. Kanga to draft the will. He excused himself on the ground that he was a close friend of the deceased and apprehended a dispute; he would rather it was prepared by some other lawyer. He accordingly introduced Mr. Naidu, another pleader, as a fitting man or the purpose. Mr. Naidu states that he came to the house on the 16th August and obtained Mr. Kanga's personal instructions about the will. His statement on this point is as follows :-
"Mr. Kanga asked Mrs. Kanga to take some bank-books and title deeds from an almirah and a chest of drawers. She took out some documents from each and handed them over to Mr. Kanga, who took up the books and documents one after another and gave me instructions. As he gave instructions I t
