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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 1705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J
CLEMENT SOARES, of Mumbai Indian Christian Inhabitant - Plaintiff
Versus
Juliana Farias and Ors. - Defendants
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 12 OF 2006 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 623 OF 2005 WITH TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 19 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 217 OF 2007
Decided On : 23-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Shailesh Shah, M/s. S.K. Srivastav & Co.
For the Defendant : Mr. Raphael D’Souza.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that undue influence must be pleaded and proved with specificity, particularity, and precision. Generalized allegations are insufficient, and undue influence cannot be presumed.

Headnote:

Undue Influence - Testamentary Suits - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63] - The court decreed both suits seeking probate to the last Will and Testament of Eliza and Anthony Soares, dismissing the opposition based on undue influence. The court found that the Defendants failed to prove that the Wills were executed under undue influence, misrepresentation, or coercion. The court also found that the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity and that the Wills were duly executed.

Fact of the Case:

The judgment disposes of two Testamentary Suits seeking probate to the Wills of Eliza and Anthony Soares. The only ground of opposition to both Wills was the alleged exercise of undue influence by the Plaintiff, who was also the sole Executor and the largest beneficiary in each Will. The court heard the evidence and decreed both suits in favor of the Plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Defendants failed to prove that the Wills were executed under undue influence, misrepresentation, or coercion. The court also found that the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity and that the Wills were duly executed.

Issues: The issues in both suits included the execution of the Wills, undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion, and the desire of the deceased to bequeath their estate equally to all their children. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff on all issues, decreeing both suits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that undue influence must be pleaded and proved with specificity, particularity, and precision. It noted that generalized allegations are insufficient and that undue influence cannot be presumed. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing that the testator was overpowered by the influence and that the Will was the result of that influence.

Final Decision: Both Testamentary Suits were decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, dismissing the opposition based on undue influence. The court ordered the issuance of probate on an expedited basis.

JUDGMENT :

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This judgement disposes of both Testamentary Suits. They were heard together. Although Affidavits in lieu of Examination-in-Chief were filed separately in each, and the two cases deal with separate Wills, the cross-examination was taken together, and the witnesses were common to both. Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 2006 seeks probate to the last Will and Testament dated 22nd January 1999 of one Eliza Anthony Soares (“Eliza”). Testamentary Suit No. 19 of 2008 seeks probate to the last Will and Testament also dated 22nd January 1999 of Eliza’s husband, Anthony Xavier Soares (“Anthony”). Both Wills are registered. The only ground of opposition to both Wills is that the Plaintiff, one of the children of Eliza and Anthony, and also the sole Executor (and the largest beneficiary) in each Will, procured the Wills by exercising undue influence on his parents. I heard Mr. Shah for the Plaintiff and Mr. D’Souza for the Defendants at some length. After considering the evidence and the material on record, I have decreed both suits. My reasons follow.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

2. Anthony and Eliza Soares had four children, three sons and a daughter. The daughter, Juliana, was the third child. The two elder sons were Patrick and Leopold (the 1st Defendant). The youngest child was their son Clement, the Plaintiff and the sole Executor of both Wills.

3. Anthony and Eliza Soares made their home in what was then the quiet and leafy suburb of Bandra. They owned a plot at 74, Rebello Road, St. Sebastian Colony in Bandra, and on this stood a structure called Aldona House. This appears to have had more than one floor, and separate apartments on each. At least one of these was tenanted. Patrick lived alone in one apartment; he was unmarried. Clement and his wife lived with Anthony and Eliza in their apartment. Juliana moved out of Aldona House after her marriage. Leopold took holy vows in 1967, becoming a Jesuit, and the conditions of his order required him to move out of Aldona House to quarters provided by the Society of Jesus. Anthony and Eliza also owned property in Aldona, Bardez, Goa.

4. By all accounts, the family was reasonably well off. Anthony had carefully husbanded his resources and assets. Eliza was previously a teacher. By 1999, Anthony led a life of retirement. Eliza continued to work, giving private tuitions in mathematics and science to 10th standard students, something she continued doing for the next several years till 2003.

5. On 22nd January 1999, both Anthony and Eliza made their Wills. Both Wills were registered later that very day. At that time, Eliza was about 76 years old, but seems to have been in good health. There is no evidence of the kind of debilitating physical or mental impairment the Defendants claim. Anthony was 85 years old then, and he, too, seems to have been active and alert. Both Anthony and Eliza lived for several years after they made their Wills: Eliza died on 11th March 2005 and Anthony died on 1st December 2006.

6. On 6th August 2005, Clement filed Testamentary Petition No. 623 of 2005 for probate to Eliza’s Will. Leopold and Juliana opposed, entering a joint caveat and Affidavit in Support dated 3rd February 2006. Vol. A, p. 38. The suit was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 2006. After Anthony died, Clement filed for probate to Anthony’s Will on 17th February 2007. Again, Leopold and Juliana opposed by filing a common caveat and Affidavit in Support dated 21st January 2008, Vol. A, p. 83 and this Petition was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 19 of 2008.

C. THE TWO WILLS IN QUESTION

7. I will turn first to the dispositions in Eliza’s Will. Vol. A, pp. 11–14. This is a typewritten Will. Eliza appointed Clement as the sole Executor of the Will. She said that she had a 50% share in Plot No. 74 and in Aldona House. The remaining 50% belonged to Anthony. She also said she he



































































































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top