Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
SHAKUNTALA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
SAVITRI DEVI - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 445 of 1989
Decided On : 01/11/1996
WILL - VALIDITY - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - FALSE RECITAL - IGNORANCE OF CONTENTS BY ATTESTING WITNESS - DELAY IN PRODUCTION - CONTRADICTIONS IN DEPOSITIONS - DISINHERITANCE OF NATURAL HEIRS - EXECUTION DULY PROVED - WILL UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, natural heirs of the deceased Bansi Lal, challenged the validity of a will executed by him in favor of the defendants, alleging forgery and lack of sound mind. The defendants claimed the will was genuine and executed in lieu of services rendered to the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given in the will for excluding the plaintiffs from inheritance were false, but held that this alone did not invalidate the will. The court also found that the attesting witness's ignorance of the will's contents did not render the attestation invalid, as the law does not require witnesses to know the contents of a will. The court further held that the delay in producing the will after the testator's death was not suspicious, as there was no evidence that the defendants had an opportunity to produce it earlier. The court also found that the contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses were minor and did not amount to suspicious circumstances. The court rejected the argument that the disinheritance of the natural heirs raised suspicion, as the purpose of a will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by the deceased Bansi Lal in favor of the defendants was valid. 2. Whether the reasons given in the will for excluding the plaintiffs from inheritance rendered the will invalid. 3. Whether the attesting witness's ignorance of the will's contents invalidated the attestation. 4. Whether the delay in producing the will after the testator's death was suspicious. 5. Whether the contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses amounted to suspicious circumstances. 6. Whether the disinheritance of the natural heirs raised suspicion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A will is not invalidated merely because the reasons given for excluding certain heirs are false. 2. Attestation of a will is valid even if the attesting witnesses do not know the contents of the will. 3. A delay in producing a will after the testator's death is not suspicious in the absence of evidence that the propounders of the will had an opportunity to produce it earlier. 4. Minor contradictions in the depositions of witnesses do not amount to suspicious circumstances. 5. Disinheritance of natural heirs does not raise suspicion, as the purpose of a will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the judgment of the trial court, upholding the validity of the will.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Validity of the Will: The court found that the deceased Bansi Lal executed a valid Will in favor of the defendants while in sound disposing mind. The Will was properly proved, and there was no evidence to suggest that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of execution (!) .
False Reasons for Exclusion: Although the reasons given in the Will for excluding the plaintiffs from inheritance were found to be false, this did not invalidate the Will. The law permits a testator to disinherit heirs without needing to provide valid reasons, and false reasons do not constitute suspicious circumstances that would invalidate the Will (!) (!) .
Attestation of the Will: The attestation was deemed valid even though the attesting witnesses did not know the contents of the Will. It is not necessary for witnesses to be aware of the Will's contents; their role is limited to witnessing the signing or acknowledgment of the signature by the testator (!) (!) .
Delay in Producing the Will: The period of approximately nine months between the testator’s death and the production of the Will was not considered suspicious, especially in the absence of evidence indicating that the defendants had an opportunity to produce it earlier (!) .
Witness Contradictions: Minor contradictions in the depositions of witnesses regarding the execution of the Will were considered insignificant and did not amount to suspicious circumstances. Memory lapses over time are understandable and do not automatically cast doubt on the Will’s validity (!) .
Disinheritance of Natural Heirs: The disinheritance of natural heirs, such as the plaintiffs, was not regarded as suspicious because the purpose of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. The law recognizes that a testator may validly disinherit heirs, and such disinheritance alone does not imply invalidity (!) (!) .
Overall Conclusion: The court upheld the validity of the Will, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the trial court’s decision in favor of the defendants. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were to bear their own costs (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with this case.
1. This appeal has been directed by the defendants against the judgment dated 1-7-1989 of the District Judge, Una, allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1986 of the Sub Judge Ist Class, Amb, District Una and granting a decree for joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the land in dispute.
2. The admitted pedigree table of the parties is as under:- (See table below) Bansi Lal son of Inder owned and possessed the following lands in village Badoh Bhadarkali, Tehsil Amb, District Una: (a) 1/2 share in the land measuring 95 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising of Khewat No. 532, Khatauni Nos. 1291 to 1296; (b) 1/4 share in the land measuring 36 Kanals 13 Marlas comprising. of Khewat No. 534 Khatauni Nos. 1302 to 1308; (c) 1/8 share in the land measuring 5 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising of Khewat No. 537 Khatauni Nos. 1338 to 1343. The total land thus falling to the share of said Shri Bansi Lal was 57 Kanals 17 Marlas. Bansi Lal, above named, during his lifetime made certain gifts and sale of a part of the land owned by him. Such gifts and sale are not being disputed by the plaintiffs. After deducting the land gifted away and sold by said Sh. Bansi Lal, land measuring 18 Kanals 3 Marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, was left with him. Bansi Lal died on 13-9-1980. The defendants got a mutation of inheritance qua the land in dispute sanctioned in their favour on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed in their favour by deceased Bansi Lal.
3. The plaintiffs have challenged the said will alleged to have, been executed by deceased Bansi Lal in favour of the defendants. It was averred that no will was executed by the deceased Bansi Lal in a sound disposing mind in favour of the defendants. The will, if any, is a result of forgery and not binding on the interest of the plaintiffs, who are entitled to succeed to the extent of 1/2 share in the land in dispute being the natural legal Inder Bansi Lal. Shakuntla Devi, Satya Devi, Savitri Devi, Bhagwanti daughter daughter, daughter, daughter. Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2.Plaintiff No. 1 Hem RajVed ParkashVijay KumariShamla Kumari (Plaintiffs 2 to 5)heirs of the deceased Bansi Lal along with the defendants.
4. The defendants resisted and contested the suit by averring that the deceased Bansi Lal in a sound disposing mind had executed a valid will in their favour of 12-5-1980 and that the mutation of inheritance was rightly sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the said will. It was further stated that the will was executed by the deceased in their favour in lieu of the services rendered by them to the deceased.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the natural heirs of deceased Bansi Lal along with defendants? OPP
2. Whether the deceased Bansi Lal executed a valid will dated 12-5-1980 in favour of defendants? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD
6. Relief.
6. The learned trial court found Issues Nos. 2 and 5 in favour of the defendants, It was held that deceased Bansi Lal had executed a valid will dated 12-5-1980 in favour of the defendants. While, deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the natural heirs of the deceased Bansi Lal along with the defendants. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 were found against the defendants. Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22-10-1986.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1986 of the trial Court, the plaintiffs went up in appeal before the District Judge, Una, who allowed the appeal, set aside the j
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
