Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 590
High Court Of Calcutta
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And Sanjib Banerjee, JJ.
GOPI NATH PAKRASHI - Appellant
Versus
SUKHADAMOYEE NARI SILPA MANDIR - Respondent
FA 234 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/08/2006
ANIT KUMAR RAKSHIT, MOHIT CHATTERJEE, S.P.ROY CHAUDHARY
A Will is a valid testamentary disposition if it expresses the testator's intent to take effect after death, is duly executed and attested, and is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Registered societies, as distinct legal entities, are not prohibited from receiving grants under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act.
Headnote:
WILL - GENUINENESS - EXECUTION - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - INTERPRETATION - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES: - A Will is a legal declaration of the testator's intention regarding property, to be carried into effect after death. - Testamentary disposition requires a clear intent to take effect upon the testator's death. - Suspicious circumstances must be raised and proven to challenge a Will's validity. - Execution and intent must be established despite suspicious circumstances. - Beneficiaries' involvement in Will execution requires greater scrutiny and caution. - Unnatural or improbable dispositions may arouse suspicion. - Registered societies are distinct from members and can hold property, not prohibited by Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act.
Fact of the Case:
Sadhan Pakrashi, a priest, executed a Will on August 15, 1971, bequeathing his assets to three educational institutions he established. His nephews and niece challenged the Will's genuineness, execution, and implementation, claiming it was a Trust and not a Will, was executed under suspicious circumstances, and the beneficiary society was not entitled to administer the estate.
Finding of the Court:
- The Will was genuine and intended to take effect after the testator's death, despite some ambiguity in its nature. - The execution was duly attested and proved by a disinterested witness, Radharani Pal, who was present at the time. - Suspicious circumstances were not established, as the propounder society was not directly involved in the execution, and the disposition was not unnatural or improbable. - The registered society was entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration, as it was a distinct entity capable of holding property.
Issues: - Whether the alleged Will was a testamentary disposition or a Trust. - Whether the execution of the Will was shrouded in suspicion. - Whether the beneficiary society was entitled to administer the estate.
Ratio Decidendi: - The essential characteristics of a Will include its ambulatory nature and revocability during the testator's lifetime, crystallizing upon death. - The Will in question clearly expressed the testator's intent to take effect after his death and support the institutions he established. - Suspicious circumstances must be specifically raised and proven, and the mere insinuation of suspicious circumstances is insufficient. - The propounder society's indirect benefit through its teacher-attesting witness did not amount to a substantial beneficiary status requiring heightened scrutiny. - The absence of direct involvement by the society or the named executors in the Will's execution, coupled with the lack of unnatural or improbable dispositions, dispelled any suspicion. - Registered societies are distinct legal entities capable of holding property and are not prohibited from receiving grants under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act.
Final Decision: The appeal by the appellants was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower court were affirmed, and the Administrator pendente lite was directed to transfer the estate to the applicant-respondent society upon proper accounting.
( 1 ) I have read the draft judgment of my learned Brother and I agree with His Lordship's findings and ordering portion. However, I wish to add few words to supplement with the risk of slight repetition. In this appeal the question is whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly accepted the document dated 15th August, 1971 said to be the last Will and testament of one Sadhan Pakrashi as a genuine and lawful testamentary instrument or not. The learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. P. Roy chowdhury urges that had the learned Judge read evidence carefully he could have found the document is a manufactured and forged one and further it was executed under suspicious circumstances. Though such plea is not taken but after reading of the document with the evidence adduced by both the parties it will appear that this document cannot be of Sadhan Pakrashi's. Mr. Roy Chowdhury contends further that the grantee is 'an interested person' and there was no reason to exclude the appellants who are the nephews of the testator. His further contention is that it will appear from the evidences of the witnesses cited by the defendants appellants viz. D. W. I, d. W. 2 and D. W. 3 that on the relevant date the testator was in Calcutta. Admittedly he had been an acute patient of blood dysentery and so he had no ability to move about. The document is of dated 15th August, 1971 when the testator died on 31st August, 1971. While the learned Trial Judge has believed the oral testimony of one Radha Rani Pal, D. W. 2, who is an interested witness as she is a teacher of one of the beneficiary schools on the one hand and on the other learned Trial Judge has discarded the evidence of D. W. I, D. W. 2, D. W. 3 for no apparent reason. Therefore, the testator's coming from Calcutta and staying at Rishra on the eventful date is a seriously doubtful question of fact. This factual issue cannot be answered only upon the oral evidence of witnesses of both the sides. There has been no corroboration apart from the evidence of D. W. 2, that on 15th August, 1971 the testator came down from Calcutta to Rishra on 15th August, 2006. His next contention is if the document is read it will appear that it is any document other than testamentary one.
( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, says that it is proved by P. W. 2 (Radharani Pal) that the Will has been duly and lawfully executed on 15th August, 1971 and on that date he was present there. P. W. 2 has also proved the signatures of other attesting witnesses. The disposition has been made by the testator not in favour of any individual, but for religious and charitable purposes. There is. no unnaturalness of the disposition.
( 3 ) THE only factual issue posing us is that on 15th August, 1971 whether it was possible for Sadhanbabu to come from Calcutta to Rishra to execute the document or not. The learned Judge has read the evidence of P. W. 2 who was one of the attesting witnesses. We have also done so and we have no hesitation to tell that Radharani is absolutely disinterested witness and the way she has deposed anyone will come to conclusion that she is an absolute truthful witness. She has admitted that Sadhan Pakrashi was suffering from blood dysentery and he was not physically well but he was mentally sound and had full mental capacity to execute this Will. She has said that for the purpose of execution of the Will he came down from Calcutta to Rishra alone and returned on the same day. She has further said that he asked her to be present there at the time of execution of the Will. It is also her evidence that he prepared a draft of the Will. Since there was scribbling and overwriting the Will was prepared afresh basing on the draft. She has said that in her presence all attesting witnesses signed. She was merely a teacher of a school set-up by testator. She did not and does not have any benefit from the school out of the disposition made by the testator. She gets sa
