Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Smt. Dini Devi (deceased) through LRs - Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Kirana Devi - Respondent
RSA No. 331 of 2008
Decided On : 07-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Indian Succession Act, 1956 – Section 59 – Lack of mental capacity – Order of mutation – Second Appeal – Judgment and decree, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, in Civil Appeal, whereby judgment and decree, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), in Civil Suit was set-aside and reversed, has been assailed by way of instant Regular Second Appeal – Statement of DW-2 explained physical and mental state of testatrix. [Para 30]
Finding of the Court: There is no hesitation to hold that execution of Will Ext DW-3/A was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and defendants have failed to remove them – Though testatrix was being looked after by defendants and DW-2, but that does not necessarily imply that Tuli Devi really intended to bequeath her estate in their favour – Rather, in given circumstances, defendants ought to have been more conscious to satisfy conscience of Court – Remaining mandatory requirement as to legal proof of a Will was clearly left out – In result, substantial questions of law, as noticed above, are decided accordingly – Judgment and decree, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Civil Appeal, is affirmed as defendants have failed to prove that Will Ext. DW3/A was legally and validly executed document.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. The judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 07/2008, whereby judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 68/2006 was set-aside and reversed, has been assailed by way of instant Regular Second Appeal.
2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned Trial Court. Appellants herein were the defendants and respondent herein was the plaintiff.
3. The dispute pertains to the estate of one Smt. Tuli Devi alias Tolu alias Nandhi, who had died issueless on 05.02.2006. She had left behind certain immovable properties. Whereas, plaintiff claimed her entitlement to the estate of Smt. Tuli Devi being her natural heir in the line of succession, defendants claimed their rights in the estate of Smt. Tuli Devi on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 20.01.2006.
4. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 68 of 2006 before learned Trial Court, seeking declaration in her favour as owner in possession of the immovable property left behind by Tuli Devi with a further prayer to permanently restrain the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the suit property on the strength of unregistered Will dated 20.01.2006 and the order of mutation dated 10.03.2006 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kullu. In alternative, decree of possession was also claimed. Plaintiff made a specific averment in the plaint that Smt. Tuli Devi was not capable of executing a Will by reason of her being an infirm person. Smt. Tuli Devi was stated to be deaf and dumb and also not possessing sound mental capacity to dispose of her property/land.
5. Defendants contested the suit and claimed the Will dated 20.01.2006 of Tuli Devi to be a legal and valid document. It was submitted that Tuli Devi used to live with the defendants, who were her real sisters. She was being looked after by the defendants and Will was executed by Tuli Devi in lieu of services rendered by the defendants to her. As per defendants, Smt. Tuli Devi was of sound and healthy mind and she was able to execute the Will. It was specifically denied that Tuli Devi was deaf and dumb. As per defendants, Tuli Devi was having sound disposing mind.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether Smt. Toli Devi during her life time has executed a valid and genuine will dated 20.01.2006 in favour of the defendants. If so, its effect? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD.
5. Relief.
7. All other issues except issue No. 3 were decided in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Learned Trial Court upheld the legality and validity of Will dated 20.01.2006 executed by Tuli Devi and on such basis held the defendants to have inherited the estate of Smt. Tuli Devi.
8. Plaintiff assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court in appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”). Learned First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence found that the defendants had not been able to remove or clear the doubts created on account of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The appeal of the plaintiff was accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was set aside. Plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of the suit land and decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from causing interference in the suit land, was passed.
9. The instant appeal has been admitted, vide order dated 10.07.2008, on following substantial questions of law:-
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
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 burden of proof lies with the propounder of a will to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, necessitating judicial satisfaction regarding the will's authenticity.
Proof of execution of Will – There can be no interference to Will which stands proved unequivocally.
(1) Proof of execution of Will – Mere nomenclature of a person in Will as an Identifier is not sufficient to hold that Will was not attested by two witnesses.(2) High Courts should restrain itself fr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of legal requirements for proving a Will and the production of sufficient evidence to remove suspicious circumstances, thereby upho....
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
