Legatees must prove execution and attestation of a Will under statutory requirements, but a second wife retains rights to terminal benefits per employer regulations, regardless of Will's validity.

jj

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs namely second wife and son of late Seenappa feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.2750/2020, wherein the Court below has dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that the testator has made a testamentary arrangement in respect of terminal benefits. The said judgment is under challenge.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

One Seenappa had two wives. Plaintiff No.1 has admitted in the plaint that she is the second wife of the said Seenappa. It is specifically pleaded that Seenappa was employed as a driver with respondent No.2 (BESCOM). The plaintiffs further assert that during the course of his employment, Seenappa made a declaration nominating plaintiff No.1 as the nominee in the service records maintained by respondent No.2.

-

The plaintiffs also contend that a registered Will dated 06.11.2012 was executed by Seenappa and a petition seeking probate was filed before the competent Court. Relying on the said Will, the plaintiffs claim entitlement to the terminal benefits, including arrears of salary, provident fund, insurance, and other service- related benefits. Despite issuance of a legal notice dated 08.01.2013 addressed to respondent No.2 seeking release of these benefits, no response was received.

Consequently, the present suit has been instituted.

Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim. Defendant No.1 specifically denied that Seenappa had nominated plaintiff No.1 in the service records and also disputed the validity and execution of the alleged Will. She further asserted that she is the lawfully wedded wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 22.04.1981, and that defendant Nos.3 and 4 were born out of the said wedlock.

-

Defendant No.2 (BESCOM), in its written statement, admitted that plaintiff No.1 was recorded as the nominee of the deceased employee Seenappa. However, it was stated that in view of the dispute among the claimants, the employer refrained from disbursing the amounts due or proceeding with any appointment under compassionate grounds, pending adjudication of the rights of the legal heirs.

To substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs relied upon the registered Will marked as Ex.P-5 and examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1. The contesting defendants did not lead any evidence. The trial Court, however, while considering Issue No.1 regarding proof of Will, answered the same in the negative, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. This judgment is now under challenge in the present appeal.

-

4. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendants. The following points arise for consideration in the appeal:

1. Whether the finding of the trial Court on Issue No.1 suffers from perversity and warrants interference by this Court?

2. Whether plaintiff No.1, though admittedly the second wife, is entitled to claim terminal benefits based on nomination, notwithstanding the adverse finding on Issue No.1?

-

Finding on Point No.1:

5. It is a settled position of law that any legatee seeking to rely upon a Will is under a statutory obligation to prove its execution and attestation in accordance with the requirements prescribed under the Indian Suc