Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 1470
High Court Of Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog
REETA RAMESH @Reeta SAWHNEY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondents
Probate Case 10 Of 1979
Decided On : 08/29/2006
Advocates: RENU NARULA, S.L.HANS, V.RAGAVACHARI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal burden of proof on the propounder of a will to establish due execution and the need for affirmative evidence to dispel suspicious circumstances.
Headnote:
WILL - Testamentary Disposition - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 2(h), Section 63 - The judgment discusses the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, including the disproportionate nature of the bequest, the absence of signatures on several pages, and the delayed probate petition. The court emphasizes the legal burden of proof on the propounder of the will and the need to explain and dispel suspicious circumstances. The judgment highlights the importance of due execution and the need for affirmative evidence to establish the validity of the will.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the validity of a will purportedly executed by the deceased. The propounder of the will, Ms. Rita Sawhney, seeks probate of the will, which bequeaths the deceased's entire estate to her, with minimal provisions for other family members. The will was executed a year and five months after the death of the deceased, and several suspicious circumstances surround its execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the will in question is not the last legal and valid testament of the deceased due to the presence of multiple suspicious circumstances that have not been explained or dispelled by the propounder. The court dismisses the probate petition and directs the retention of the deceased's estate until appropriate orders are obtained from a Civil Court or a succession certificate is obtained.
Issues: The main issue is whether the will presented is the last legal and valid testament of the deceased, considering the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, the delayed probate petition, and the disproportionate nature of the bequest.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the legal burden of proof on the propounder of the will to establish due execution and explains the need for affirmative evidence to dispel suspicious circumstances. It underscores the importance of explaining and dispelling suspicious circumstances and highlights the significance of due execution in establishing the validity of a will.
Final Decision: The probate petition is dismissed, and the court directs the retention of the deceased's estate until appropriate orders are obtained from a Civil Court or a succession certificate is obtained.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
( 1 ) WHETHER Late Sarukkai Srinivasa Gopalachari Raghavachari S/o late Rao Bahadaur S. T. Srinivasa Gopalachari died intestate or is the testament dated 27. 5. 1974 his last legal and valid testament" The propounder of the will is Ms. Rita Sawhney. She was married to Flight Lieutenant R. Ramesh, a son born to the deceased from his second wife. She is the principal beneficiary under the will.
( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the evidence on record a few important dates may be noted. The alleged will is stated to have been executed on 27. 5. 1974. The deceased died on 25. 8. 1976. Petition seeking probate of the will has been filed on 3. 2. 1978.
( 3 ) ONE things stands out. The will has been propounded a year and five months after the death of the deceased.
( 4 ) THE deceased had two wives, namely, Ms. R. Jayalakshmi (first wife) and Ms. Hilda @ Mira Raghavachari (second wife ). Nalini, Radha and Nandini were the three daughters born to him. S. R. Narayan, Sqdn. Ldr. R. Ramesh and s. R. Niranjan were the three sons born to him.
( 5 ) UNDER the will, amount lying in credit in the PPF account in the state Bank of India, Lajpat Nagar in name of the deceased has been bequeathed to one Mr. B. R. Dolia, a friend of the deceased. Stating that the deceased was to receive a pension of Rs. 2500/- per month for a period of 10 years with effect from 1. 7. 1970, and recording that if he died before completion of the said 10 years' period, the document mandates that the pension would be distributed amongst 5 beneficiaries. 4 beneficiaries would get Rs. 350/- per month and the petitioner would get Rs. 1,100/- per month. 2 out of 4 beneficiaries are charities. 1 beneficiary is S. R. Niranjan, son of the deceased and the other is ms. Mira Raghavachari, the second wife of the deceased. Amounts payable to the deceased under annuity deposit certificates issued by Reserve Bank of India have been bequeathed to the petitioner. All movable assets in the residence of the deceased have been bequeathed to the petitioner. Deceased's 1/6th share in 34 acres of land in the State of Tamil Nadu near Mahabalipuram has also been bequeathed to the petitioner. An executor, namely, Ambrish Kumar, Adv. stands named to execute the will.
( 6 ) EXCEPT for a son and the second wife who have been bequeathed rs. 350/- per month and that too till 30th June 1980, nothing has been bequeathed to any other family member. The entire bequest is in favour of the daughter in law.
( 7 ) IT would also be relevant to note that as of the year 1974, radha, Nandini and S. R. Niranjan, the two daughters and the son of the deceased were aged 29, 24 and 14 years respectively. The said daughters and son were unmarried.
( 8 ) THE will is typed with a manual typewriter and consists of 8 sheets. It bears the signatures of the deceased on the last Page just below where the will concludes. No other Page bears any signatures or even initials. On the first Page there are two corrections in hand. At both places, after carrying out the corrections by hand, signatures of the deceased have been appended.
( 9 ) HOWEVER, the corrections with signatures, on the first Page are in a different ink and with a different pen vis-a-vis the signatures on the last page. The corrections and signatures on the first Page are with a ball pen and signatures on the last Page are with an ink pen.
( 10 ) THE endorsement on the last Page of the will recording due execution reads as under:-"i, the above mentioned Sarukkai Srinivasa Gopalachari Raghavachari have signed every Page of this will which is in 8 sheets and I have also also signed this will on the TWENTY SEVENTH May, 1974 in the presence of the following two witnesses who have also signed in front of me as witnesses. "
( 11 ) THUS, apart from the feature appearing on the will noted above i. e. different pen used while signing on the last Page of the will and corrections with signatures on the first page, second thing which emerg
