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

2022 Supreme(SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Swarnalatha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kalavathy & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP© No. 13840 of 2019)
Decided On : 30-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Advocate, Mr. N.J. Ramchandar, Advocate, Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Deivasigamani Saravanan, Advocate, Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Probate of Will – In the matter of appreciating genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for Court to see whether distribution made by testator was fair and equitable to all of his children – Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.
(2) Revocation of Probate – Exclusion of one of natural heirs from bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.

Headnote:

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 384 – Revocation of Probate – In the matter of appreciating genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for Court to see whether distribution made by testator was fair and equitable to all of his children – Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will – Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either signature of testator is disputed or mental capacity of testator is questioned – When it was not even case of respondents that testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, High Court found fault with appellants for not disclosing nature of ailments suffered by them – Exclusion of one of natural heirs from bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and Judgment of Principal District Court, Vellore granting probate of both Wills, restored. (Paras 21, 25, 26 and 27)

Facts of the case:

Probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother, having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, one set of legatees claiming under the Will have come up with instant appeal.

Findings of Court:

High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Will and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter-in-law at the time of execution of Will has no basis in law.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. The probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother, having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), one set of legatees claiming under the Will have come up with the above appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The couple, Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal had two sons by name V.M. Chandrasekaran and V.M. Sivakumar and a daughter by name Kalavathy.

4. The mother Adhilakshmiammal died on 14.08.1995. She left behind a Will dated 30.01.1995, bequeathing the properties purchased by her and the properties which she got from her maternal uncle, in favour of her two sons. The daughter Kalavathy was not given any share, on the ground that she had already been provided sufficiently.

5. The father Mannar Reddiar died on 08.08.2000. He left behind a Will dated 10.12.1998 bequeathing his properties in favour of his two sons and his grandchildren. The daughter Kalavathy was not allotted any property even under this Will, but the Will contained reasons.

6. The eldest son V.M. Chandrasekaran died subsequently in October, 1999, leaving behind him surviving, his wife Swarnalatha and two sons by name C. Karthikeyan and C. Rishikesan, who are the appellants herein.

7. Thereafter, the daughter Kalavathy and the surviving son V.M. Sivakumar (of the testators) filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Poonamallee. Upon coming to know of the same, the appellants herein who are the wife and sons of the eldest son V.M. Chandrasekaran filed a petition in probate O.P No. 1 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, under Sections 270, 276 and 289 of the Act for the grant of probate of the Wills of Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal. The petition was hotly contested by the daughter and other son of the testators. However, by a judgment dated 7.06.2010, the District Court granted probate of both the Wills namely the Will dated 30.01.1995 executed by the mother Adhilakshmiammal and the Will dated 10.12.1998 executed by the father Mannar Reddiar.

8. Challenging the judgment of the Probate Court, the daughter and the other son of the testators (respondents 1 and 2 herein) filed an appeal under Section 384 of the Act on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment on the ground that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of both the Wills. Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment, the legatees are on appeal before us.

9. The claim of the appellants before the Probate Court was that the parents executed their last Will and Testament, in a sound and disposing state of mind and that those Wills were executed in the manner prescribed by law. To establish the execution of the Will of the mother Adhilakshmiammal, in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the appellants examined Mr. S. Rajasekaran as PW-2. He was one of the attestors of the Will. The other attestor of the Will was none else than the father Mannar Reddiar. One Mr. B. Nithyanandham, the scribe of the Will of the Mother was also examined as PW-3.

10. One Mr. M. Dakshinamurthy, who was one of the attestors of the Will of the father Mannar Reddiar, was examined as PW-4 and the scribe of the said Will by name Mr. V. Sivaram, was examined as PW-5.

11. While the Will executed by the mother Adhilakshmiammal was an unregistered Will, the Will executed by the father Mannar Reddiar was a registered Will. Both these Wills were marked as Exhibits P-1 and P-2 respectively. The death certificates of the testators were marked as Exhibits P-3 and P-4 and the copy of the plaint in the partition suit filed by the re

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