IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
(PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Smti Minu Das, W/o Late Manmohan Das and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smti Bulu Das, W/o Late Mantu Das and Ors. - Respondents
Case No. Intest. Cas. No. 6 Of 2017
Decided On : 23-09-2024
Succession - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 63, 68 - The court emphasized the necessity of proving the execution of a will with statutory compliance, highlighting the importance of sound mind and absence of suspicious circumstances in the will's execution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought a Letter of Administration for a will executed by the deceased, which the respondents contested, claiming it was executed under undue influence and when the testatrix was not of sound mind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution of the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including the testatrix's health condition and the lack of credible evidence to dispel doubts about the will's validity.
Issues: Whether the will was executed by the testatrix in sound mind and free from undue influence, and whether the appellants could prove the will's execution amidst suspicious circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of the will to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, which the appellants failed to do.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Robin Phukan, J.) :
Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal, under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 27.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta, in Title Suit (P) Case No. 2/2016.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, dated 27.06.2017, the learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta (‘trial Court’, for short) has dismissed the application filed by the appellants for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the will executed by deceased Phulobala Das, on 01.07.2012, in favour of the appellants.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:
After the death of Late Phulobala Das, the appellants filed a suit, being Title Suit (P) Case No. 2/2016, before the Court of learned District Judge, Barpeta, for granting letter of administration in respect of the will by annexing the will with the plaint as Annexure-1. Upon the said plaint, the District Judge, Barpeta registered the case, being Title Suit (P) Case No. 2/2016, and thereafter, made over the same to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta issued notice to the respondents, on receipt of which the respondents entered appearance before the learned trial Court and filed their written objection stating that there was no cause of action and it was also denied that during the lifetime of Late Phulobala Das, she had executed a will on 01.07.2012, in favour of the appellants in presence of witnesses with her sound body and mind without the influence of anybody in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the will, and that the same is false, concocted and misleading, and that during the lifetime, Late Phulobala Das never made any gift or transfer of other properties except the will, is also false and misleading and the fact is that the respondents are daughter-in-law and grandchild of Late Phulobala Das and they are also legal heirs of Late Phulobala Das and during her lifetime, Late Phulobala Das executed Title Suit No. 33/1983, against the defendants Surja Das and others, in respect of properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, but the Court was pleased to dismiss the suit on contest. However, on appeal, the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta decreed the suit in favour of Late Phulobala Das. Thereafter, Surja Das and others preferred a second appeal before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court. But, due to her illness, Late Phulobala Das could not initiate the execution proceeding and ultimately, she died on 05.07.2012, leaving behind her son Sri Manmohan Das, on the death of Man
Beni Chand (Since Dead) now by L. Rs vs. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and Ors.
Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. vs. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr.
V. Velayudhan Nair vs. Kallyanikutty Amma
Januava Dasi wife of L. Kunj Das Bairagin vs. Hari Dasi
Chhanga Singh Indar Singh vs. Dharam Singh and Ors.
Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta and Anr.
Daulat Ram and Ors. vs. Sodha and Ors.
Sridevi and Ors. vs. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors
Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar and Ors.
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam
The court reaffirmed that a will must be executed in compliance with statutory requirements, and any suspicion regarding its validity must be adequately addressed by the propounder.
A will must be executed in accordance with statutory requirements, and any suspicious circumstances must be adequately addressed by the propounder for the will to be validated.
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and validity, and the presence of suspicious circumstances must be specifically pleaded by the opposing party to shift the burden of proof.
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the validity ....
The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily prove its execution, whereupon the burden of proving any allegations of fraud or coercion shifts to the objectors. Minor gaps in testimony do not undermin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the due execution and validity of a Will, while also addressing and removing suspicious circumst....
The propounders have the onus to prove due execution of a Will as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. When there are suspicious circumstances, a greater onus lies o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.