SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Derek A.C. Lobo and Others – Appellants
Versus
Ulric M.A. Lobo (Dead) by LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5094 of 2011
Decided On : 07-12-2023
[WILL] - [PROBATE OF WILL] - [Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68] - [The court discussed the legal requirements for proving a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the propounder of the Will to establish its validity, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances. The court highlighted that the mere presence of beneficiaries during execution does not invalidate a Will, and the absence of certain witnesses does not automatically render it suspicious. The court ultimately found that the trial court had correctly established the Will's validity, reversing the High Court's decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerns the probate of a Will executed by Cecelia Lobo, contested by her daughters and one son. The trial court granted probate, but the High Court reversed this decision, citing suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had correctly determined the Will's execution and validity, while the High Court's findings on suspicious circumstances were unfounded and lacked legal basis.
Issues: Whether the Will was executed validly and whether the suspicious circumstances cited by the High Court warranted its rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the propounder to establish the Will's validity, and that well-founded suspicious circumstances must be specifically pleaded by the contestant to shift the burden back to the propounder.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's decree granting probate of the Will dated 10.11.1992.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 3077 of 2001 reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2001 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore in O.S. No. 21 of 1997.
2. The suit in question was originally filed as a petition for probate of the Will dated 10.11.1992, executed by deceased Cecelia Lobo, by her sons Dr. Derek AC Lobo and Cedric P.A. Lobo who are the joint executors named therein. In the said proceedings the original defendants 1 and 6, who are the daughters of deceased Cecelia Lobo, put in caveat and disputed its execution and genuineness. Subsequently, it was converted as an original suit under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act and was numbered as O.S. No. 21/1997. Evidently, the 5th defendant who was another brother of the appellants resisted the suit by filing a written statement and the sisters of the appellants herein who are respondent Nos. 3 and 7 herein (defendant Nos. 1 and 6 in the suit), jointly filed a written statement. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1, defendant No. 7 was examined as PW-2 and one of the attesting witnesses was examined as PW-3. On the side of the defendants, defendant No. 5 was examined as DW-1, one Jathin C. Patna was examined as DW-2 and a finger print and hand writing expert by name C.V. Jayadevi was examined as DW-3. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of probate of the last Will and testament dated 10.11.1992 of their deceased mother Cecilia Gertrude Lobo. Further consequential directions were also issued as per the judgment dated 20.02.2001.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No. 5 preferred appeal viz., M.F.A. No. 3077 of 2021, which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment. None of the other defendants filed any appeal against it. After re-appreciation of the evidence the High Court held that the Will dated 10.11.1992 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. As a necessary sequel the suit was dismissed.
4. As per the order dated 09.07.2009, this Court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, as it existed on that date, until further orders.
5. Heard Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were defendant Nos. 1 and 6. None of the other respondents including the legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos. 3 and 5 have chosen to contest the matter despite the receipt of notice.
6. A bare perusal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the impugned order would reveal that with respect to the issue of execution of the Will dated 10.11.1992 by deceased Cecelia Gertrude Lobo the courts are ad idem, in the sense that it was she who had signed the same as testatrix. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving the execution of the Will in terms of the provisions under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity, ‘the Succession Act’) and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’). However, even after finding that the Will was executed by Mrs. Cecilia Gertrude Lobo the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court holding that in view of the suspicious circumstances it could not have been held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving due and valid execution of the Will. In troth, High Court did not specifically enter into any specific finding regarding the mental condition of the testatrix for executing the Will in question. The impugned order would reveal that after elaborately considering the physical state of the testatrix that she was suffering from arthritis and was
Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead, through LRs.)
Gurdial Kaur and Others vs. Kartar Kaur and Others
Nathia Bai and Others vs. Gangaram and Others
Meenakshiammal (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. Chandrasekharan and Another
P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar
Chinmoyee Saha vs. Debendra Lal Saha
Ryali Kameswara Rao vs. Bendapudi Suryaprakasarao
Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage
Ramabai Padmakar Patil (D) through LRs. and Others vs. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Others
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and validity, and the presence of suspicious circumstances must be specifically pleaded by the opposing party to shift the burden of proof.
Point of Law : It has to consider relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning. It was further observed that a mere exclusion of either a brother or sister per-se would not create a su....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the due execution and validity of a Will, while also addressing and removing suspicious circumst....
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the validity ....
The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding its validity, particularly when substantial benefits accrue to them, or the Will may be deemed invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.