Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Manisana, J.
A.Rohnuna -Appellant
Versus
Lalrinthanga & Others -Respondent
Civil Revision 12(H) of 1984
Decided On : 27-09-1985
WILL - PROBATE - MIZO DISTRICT (INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 4, 8, 12 - WILL EXECUTED BY A PERSON OF SOUND MIND - ONUS OF PROOF ON THE PROPOUNDER - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - COURT'S POWER TO RE-APPRECIATE EVIDENCE - RULE 18 OF THE RULES FOR THE REGULATION OF THE PROCEDURES OF OFFICERS APPOINTED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE IN THE LUSHAI HILLS - ORDER 6 OF THE ASSAM HIGH COURT (JURISDICTION OVER DISTRICT COUNCIL COURTS) ORDER, 1954.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the probate of a Will granted by the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl, and upheld by the District Council Court, Aizawl, on the ground that the testator, Dr. R. K. Khuala, was not of sound mind when he executed the Will and that the Will was void under section 8 of the Mizo District (Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the onus of proving the Will was on the propounder, and that in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law was sufficient to discharge the onus. The Court further held that where there were suspicious circumstances, the onus was on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the Will as genuine.
Issues: 1. Whether the testator, Dr. R. K. Khuala, was of sound mind when he executed the Will. 2. Whether the Will was void under section 8 of the Mizo District (Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the findings of the Courts below that the testator was of sound mind when he executed the Will and that the Will was not void under section 8 of the Act were not unreasonable, and that there was no error of fact or law in arriving at the conclusion.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. Dr. R. K. Khuala died on 2.6.83 at his age of 82. Respondent No. 1, Lalrintluanga is the grandson of late Dr. R. K. Khuala and Respondent No. 2, Ngurbiakvali is the married daughter of late Dr. R. K. Khuala. The petitioner, A. Rohnuna is the youngest son of late Dr. Kbuala. The eldest son of late Dr. Khuala father of respondent No. 1 lives separately at Aizawl along with his family including respondent No. 1 in a house which was given by late Dr. Khuala. The respondent No. 2, daughter of late Dr. Khuala, lives permanently in Shillong with her husband. After the death of Dr. Khuala, the respondent No. 1, Sri Lalrinthanga filed a suit which was registered as HC Case No. 119 of 1983 in the court of the Subordinate District Council, Aizawl for taking out probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased father of the petitioner, Dr. R. K. Khuala on 4.4.82. The present petitioner was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. There were two Wills one executed on 31.3.1982 and the other on 4.4.1982 by late Dr. R. K. Khuala. The Will executed on 4.4.1982 cancelled the Will executed on 31.3.1982.
3. The petitioner contested the suit stating, inter alia, that Dr. R. K. Khuala was not of sound mind when he executed the Wills and both the Wills were void under section 8 of the Mizo District ( Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956 ( for short the 'Act' ), and that the petitioner being the youngest son has right of inheritance under the law prevalent among the Mizos in Mizoram. The Subordinate District Council Court granted probate of the Will under or by an order dated 21.9.83 rejecting the plea of the petitioner. The appeal against the order of the Subordinate District Council Court filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Council Court on 3.2.1984 in C. A. case No. 38 of 1983. That is how now the petition has come up for hearing.
4. Shri G. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Will has not been proved in the circumstances of the case. There are materials to show that Dr. R. K. Khuala, who was aged 82, was not of sound mind at the relevant time. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, Advocate General, Meghalaya has contended that the petitioner has admitted the execution of the Will. The plea of the petitioner was that his father was not of sound mind when he executed the Wills and that the contention of the petitioner has been rejected by the Courts below and as such there is no material to interfere with the findings of the Courts below.
5. A reading of sections 4 and 8 of the Act together shows that every person of sound mind not below tae age of 18, may dispose of by Will his or her property which he or she alienate during his or her life. The testator of a Will shall execute Will only when be is of sound mind. The execution of a Will shall be in presence of not less than 2 (two) witnesses. If any person leaves more than one Will, the one bearing the latest date shall be deemed to be final. A Will not attested in accordance with the provision of the Act shall be void. A will or any part of it the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importuity as takes away free agency of the testator is void. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Subordinate District Council Court shall have the like powers and authority in relation to the granting of probate and all matters connected therewith, as are by law vested in it in relation to any Civil Suit or proceeding pending therein.
6. The S
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
