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

1960 Supreme(Cal) 108

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, H. K. Bose
A. E. G. CARAPIET - Appellant
Versus
A. Y. DERDERIAN - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  80  Of  1958
Decided On : MAY 17, 1960

Advocates Appeared:
A.C.Ganguly, E.R.Meyer, GINVALLA

A court should not rely solely on the evidence of one witness when there is conflicting evidence on the issue of testamentary capacity.

Headnote:

WILL - PROBATE - TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CROSS-EXAMINATION - FAILURE TO PUT CASE TO WITNESSES - INFERENCES - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROBATE - TERMS OF SETTLEMENT - FILING AND RECORDING - EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

The propounder of a will appealed against the dismissal of her application for probate by the trial court. The main issue was whether the testator had a sound disposing mind at the time of executing the will.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the testator had a sound disposing mind and that the will was duly executed. It held that the trial court erred in relying solely on the evidence of one witness who had testified that the testator was not in a fit condition to make the will, and in failing to put this case to the medical witnesses who had testified that the testator had a sound disposing mind.

Issues: 1. Whether the testator had a sound disposing mind at the time of executing the will. 2. Whether the trial court erred in relying solely on the evidence of one witness who had testified that the testator was not in a fit condition to make the will. 3. Whether the trial court erred in failing to put this case to the medical witnesses who had testified that the testator had a sound disposing mind.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof is on the propounder of a will to establish that the testator had a sound disposing mind at the time of executing the will. 2. Medical evidence is admissible to prove or disprove testamentary capacity. 3. A court should not rely solely on the evidence of one witness when there is conflicting evidence on the issue of testamentary capacity. 4. A court should put the case of each party to the witnesses called by the other party. 5. Failure to put a case to a witness may lead to miscarriage of justice.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the probate was granted.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the propounder against the judgment and decree of P. G. Mallick, J. dismissing the propounder's application for probate of the will of one Gregory George Carapiet dated the 28th December 1955. The propounder is the wife of the testator.

( 2 ) THE terms of the will are simple. It first revokes previous testamentary writings and codicils and appoints his wife Anna Elda Gula Carapiet, the propounder and the Mercantile Bank of India as executors. Then follow the dispositions which are short and simple. It gives Rs. 65,000/-to the testator's sister Virginia Carapiet and the rest and residue to his wife the propounder with the wish that she does not remarry. A wish is also further added that after the death of the wife, the property she dies possessed of, be delivered to the Jerusalem Armenian Partriarchate for the education of orphans. It is a short will and these are its brief and only terms.

( 3 ) IT ends by saying that the testator had a recent stroke of paralysis on the right side and was unable to sign clearly and distinctly and hence along with his signature made by his right hand, he had also put his left thumb impression in the presence of two witnesses. It states also that although he was not sound in body, he was sound in mind and that the will has been read out to him and that he has fully understood the contents of the same. The will was executed at the Jehangir Nursing Home, Poona, where the testator died on the 1st January 1956 and where he was admitted on the 21st October 1955. The will is witnessed by Dr. P. M. Bharucha the Resident Medical Officer of the Jehangir Nursing Home and by the Attending Nurse, S. Leitao.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge comes to a definite finding that he is satisfied on the evidence that on the 28th December 1955, the testator executed the testamentary instrument. In fact, he says that the evidence of both Dr. Bharucha and Nurse Leitao on the fact of execution of the will is acceptable to him. Having found that the will was duly executed, the learned trial Judge, however came to the conclusion that the testator had no sound disposing mind and it is really on that ground that he dismissed the present application for probate. In holding that the testator had no disposing mind the learned Judge has gone against all evidence on record including the evidence of all the doctors and all the nurses who deposed that the testator had a sound disposing mind and relied entirely on the evidence of only one solitary witness Rev. Clevent William Venkata Ramiah.

( 5 ) THE main reason for which the learned Judge appears to dismiss the overwhelming mass of evidence of doctors and nurses is that somehow or other they were all supposed to be under the influence of the propounder who is repeatedly described in the judgment as an "attractive woman of many qualities", with "pleasing manners", "great social qualities", "intelligent", "shrewd" and "capable". Some minor points of discrepancy have been mentioned by the learned Judge in the medical evidence but they are not enough to make him reject all medical testimony, which ho did, only on the ground of the influence of the charming qualities of the propounder on the medical witnesses. We are satisfied on the evidence on record that this inference of the learned trial Judge about the devastating effect of feminine charms on the whole world including the old and sedate doctors of the medical profession in Poona is based entirely on suspicion. This Court is not unaware that charms of a woman can lead to undue influence and that feminine charms may have unpredictable effects on the young and the old alike. But the Court of law must proceed by proof of the effect of such charms and if it is a case of undue influence it must be established as a fact. It was nobody's case on the records here that the propounder exercised undue influence on the doctors and nurses or that her social charms so hypnotised them, that they al


























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