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

1982 Supreme(Cal) 71

High Court Of Calcutta
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, Bimalendra Nath Maitra
PROBODH KUMAR DAS - Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  107  Of  1976
Decided On : 03/02/1982

Advocates Appeared:
A.N.BASU, M.K.DAS, P.B.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE

The presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will does not invalidate the Will if the evidence satisfies the judicial conscience that the Will was duly executed and attested and that the testator had testamentary capacity.

Headnote:

WILL - EXECUTION - VALIDITY - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - SATISFACTION OF JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE - INTERPRETATION OF WILL - TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY - MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CAPACITY - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - EVIDENCE - WITNESS CREDIBILITY - NATURAL DISPENSATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - DRAFT OF WILL - PRESENCE OF ATTESTING WITNESSES - EXECUTION DATE - CONTENTS OF WILL - INTERPRETATION OF WILL - CONSTRUCTION OF WILL - INTENTION OF TESTATOR - BENEFICIARIES - DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY.

Fact of the Case:

Kiron Sashi Dasi allegedly executed a Will appointing the plaintiff as executor on 15-5-1968. She died childless on 16-6-1968. The beneficiaries of the Will were her brother's sons. The defendants contested the suit, alleging that she lacked mental and physical capacity to execute the Will and that it was forged.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff had proved the execution and validity of the Will. It held that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will had been removed by the evidence of the attesting witnesses and the registration of a sale deed by Kiron Sashi Dasi two days after the execution of the Will.

Issues: 1. Whether the Will was duly executed and attested. 2. Whether Kiron Sashi Dasi had testamentary capacity at the time of execution. 3. Whether the Will was forged or fabricated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will does not invalidate the Will if the evidence satisfies the judicial conscience that the Will was duly executed and attested and that the testator had testamentary capacity. The court also held that the registration of a sale deed by the testator shortly after the execution of the Will is strong evidence of the testator's mental and physical capacity.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and decreed the suit.

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the alleged executor of the Will of one Kiron Sashi Dasi. He has alleged that on 15-5-1968 she executed a Will and appointed him executor. Then on 16-6-1968 she died childless at Gormi, P. S. Dum Dum. The beneficiaries of the Will are her brother's sons.

( 2 ) THE defendants Nos. 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been alleged inter alia that she has no mental and physical capacity to execute the alleged Will. She was bedridden for more than six months before the execution of the alleged Will. She was under the supervision and care of the defendant Broja Bala Dasi. It was a forged and fabricated Will with a view to depriving her natural heirs.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge rejected the plaintiff's contention and dismissed the suit by observing that the suspicious circumstances had not been removed. Hence this appeal by the executor.

( 4 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there are no suspicious circumstances. The learned Judge did not consider the contents of the registered sale deed Ext. B executed and registered by her on 17-5-1968. That conclusively shows that she had physical and mental capacity to execute the sale deed on 17-5-1968, which had been executed only two days after the execution of the alleged Will Ext. 2. The case has been proved by the evidence given by P. W. 2 Bijay.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that Kiron Sashi was about eighty at the execution of the alleged Will. She was a childless and illiterate lady. No relation was consulted when the Will was executed. The evidence of P. Ws. cannot be believed. The draft of the Will has not been produced. There is discrepancy as to who read out the contents of the alleged Will Ext. 2 to her. Further there is discrepancy regarding the date of execution of the alleged Will be- cause it appears from the Will Ext. 2 that there is an overwriting whether it is executed on the 1st Jaisthe or 2nd Jaistha, 1375 B. S.

( 6 ) IT is true that presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavy. It is in connection with Wills that present such suspicious circumstances that the decision of the English Courts often mentioned tests of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. This has been stated in the case of Barry v. Butlin in (1838) 2 Moo PC 480 and followed by Gajendragadkar. J. in the case of H. Venkatchala v. Thimmajamma.

( 7 ) P. W. 1 Probodh was the alleged executor. He says that Kiran was his father's sister and after her husband's death she lived at Gorui. P. W. 2 Bijay Narayan says that the Will was written by P. W. Adhir in his presence and he was an attesting witness. He has been corroborated by P. W. 3 Adhir, who is the scribe. He says that he scribed the Will according to the instruction given by Kiran. It is true that there is discrepancy as to who read over the alleged Will Ext. 2 to Kiran. But this is a minor one and not a major discrepancy,

( 8 ) ABOUT non-production of the alleged draft of the Will the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to the latest case of Indubala v. Manindra Chandra to show that where there is no evidence to show that there was any invariable practice that the draft of the Will had to be preserved, that question was of no importance. Kiran Bala was an illiterate aged widow. A long time has expired and at this stage of the proceedings it is immaterial if the draft of the alleged Will was not produced,

( 9 ) LET us now turn to the evidence given by the objectors. D. W. 1 Narendra Das has stated that Kiran was not at Hoogly on 17-5-1968, though that statement is being belied by contents of the registered sale deed Ext. B executed by her on 17-5-1968. There her address has been given as Hooghly Jagudaspara. That document is very important because it was executed on the 3rd Jaisthe 1375 B. S. corresponding to 17-5-1968, that is, only two days after


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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