Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Kailash Singh & others - Appellants
Versus
Laxmi Singh - Respondents
RSA No.81 of 2015
Decided On : 18-03-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 59, 61, 63, and 68 - Dispute over the validity of a Will executed by deceased - Plaintiff claimed Will was procured through fraud and undue influence; defendant asserted valid execution based on registered document - Court held that burden of proof lies on the propounder of the Will to establish its validity and the execution must adhere to statutory requirements - The original Will was not produced in court, leading to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove the Will's execution and contents. (Paras 10, 11, 26, 33)
(B) The court found that the absence of original Will and failure to meet statutory proof requirements rendered the Will invalid. (Paras 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff and defendant, brothers, contested the inheritance of their mother’s estate based on a Will allegedly executed by her in favor of the defendant, which the plaintiff claimed was fraudulent.
Findings of Court:
Both lower courts found the defendant failed to prove the Will's validity due to lack of original document and insufficient evidence.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will and whether the defendant had established its execution through proper legal means.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of the Will to demonstrate its valid execution, and failure to present the original document creates a presumption against its validity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla camp at Rohru in civil appeal No.30-R/13 of 2010 whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Rohru in Civil Suit No.65-1 of 2009 has been affirmed.
2. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of original defendant Shri Deva Singh. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiff Shri Laxmi Singh (respondent herein) and the original defendant Shri Deva Singh were real brothers. On death of their mother Smt. Tipsi on 27.02.2009, a dispute arose inter se the plaintiff and defendant with respect to the inheritance of the estate left behind by her. The defendant claimed entire estate of Smt. Tipsi, except a small portion thereof, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Smt. Tipsi in his favour on 27.09.1993 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Rohru, District Shimla vide registration No.27-III/93. On the other hand, plaintiff disputed the legality and validity of Will of Smt. Tipsi on the ground that the defendant had procured the same by exercise of fraud and undue influence. The plaintiff alleged that Smt. Tipsi was an illiterate and rustic woman with rural background. The defendant had taken benefit of illiteracy and innocence of Smt. Tipsi and had managed execution of Will. As per the plaintiff, the Will of Smt. Tipsi as propounded by the defendant was not result of free volition and consent of Smt. Tipsi. He further alleged that Smt. Tipsi had equal love and affection for both the sons and she had made declarations on many occasions that after her death both her sons would be entitled to her properties.
4. As per plaintiff he was not having any knowledge of the execution of Will by Smt. Tipsi till her death. It was only after the death of Smt. Tipsi that the defendant produced the Will before the revenue authorities for attestation of mutation in his favour. Plaintiff thereafter allegedly made inquiries and found that the defendant had taken Smt. Tipsi to Chirgaon after convincing her that she had to execute Will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant in equal shares. The Will was scribed in connivance with the scribe of the Will. The scribe instead of reading over and explaining the contents of Will to Smt. Tipsi, simply informed that the Will had been scribed equally in favour of both the sons of Smt. Tipsi. The plaintiff also alleged that even the attesting witnesses were under the impression that the Will was executed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant and it was under this bonafide belief that Smt. Tipsi and the attesting witnesses had signed the said Will. Another allegation was that the contents of Will were not read over and explained to Smt. Tipsi even by the Sub Registrar at the time of registration and she was simply asked as to in whose favour the Will was being executed and her natural reply was that it was being executed in favour of both the sons.
5. The plaintiff also challenged the right of Smt. Tipsi to make testamentary disposition of the property on the ground that it was joint with other co-owners. Another averment made in the plaint is that no such circumstances existed during the life time of Smt. Tipsi, which could have motivated her against the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed that during the life time of Smt. Tipsi, she sometimes resided with the defendant and sometimes with the plaintiff.
6. In this backdrop, the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration to the effect that Will dated 27.09.1993 of Smt. Tipsi was illegal, wrong, null, void, ineffective and a sham document being result of misrepresentation amounting to fraud. The plaintiff further sought declaration that he was entitled to inherit the estat
The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, who must produce the original document and meet statutory requirements for execution.
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, who must dispel any doubts regarding its execution, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances.
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
A Will must be proven with attesting witnesses as per statutory requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
The due execution and attestation of a will, once proven, cannot be nullified by mere suspicion unless substantial evidence of invalidity is presented.
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
