Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kalawati Devi W/o Shri Ram Singh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 476 of 2015
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Appellant was applicant before the Court below, who prayed for grant of probate of an unregistered WILL executed by his grandmother , widow , resident – Said WILL was executed , by virtue of which she bequeathed property, which she had purchased vide sale deed bearing , in favour of this appellant – Held, Further, one of attesting witnesses have categorically stated that he has put his signature and made endorsement on a blank paper, which contained some thumb impression – He admitted that he did not sign any WILL executed nor signed any document in her presence – It has also come in evidence of witnesses that testator, due to her very old age and because of very ill health was admitted Nursing Home and died soon after she was released – This is rather a very suspicious circumstance, which creates doubt over unregistered WILL – It was duty of applicant to clear smog which has shrouded execution of WILL, but, appellant has himself failed to do so – In fact, applicant’s witnesses have demolished case of applicant-appellant and have, in fact, proved allegations of opposite parties that WILL is not genuine, but, doubtful and is a created document – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the District Judge-II, Giridih in Probate Case No. 4 of 2003, whereby learned District Judge-II, Giridih has dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein for grant of probate of WILL dated 10.02.2003.
2. The appellant was the applicant before the Court below, who prayed for grant of probate of an unregistered WILL dated 10.02.2003 executed by his grandmother Ramsingari Devi, widow of late Shivaji Singh, resident of Giridih. The said WILL was executed on 10.02.2003 by Ramsingari Devi, by virtue of which she bequeathed the property, which she had purchased vide sale deed bearing No. 186 dated 07.01.1955 and 412 dated 20.01.1954, in favour of this appellant. It is the case of the applicant that the deceased had four daughters, who are married and are living with their respective in-laws. This appellant chose to live with her grandmother Ramsingari Devi. Three of the daughters of Ramsingari Devi, namely, Urmila Devi, Uma Devi and Tara Devi prevailed upon Ramsingari Devi and assured her that they will look after Ramsingari Devi, and on such assurance, got a WILL executed on 15.02.2000. The intention of these ladies changed after execution of the WILL and they left Ramsingari Devi in a pitiable condition, thus, Ramsingari Devi revoked the WILL on 15.07.2000 and since this appellant was residing with her and was looking after Ramsingari Devi, she executed a WILL on 10.02.2003 with respect to the property mentioned in the schedule. On 16.02.2003, Ramsingari Devi expired and the appellant being the sole executor of the unregistered WILL prayed for grant of probate.
3. In the probate proceeding, Court issued notice. Opposite Party No. 1 Kalawati Devi filed her show cause and supported the case of the applicant-appellant. The other daughters, i.e. opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their written statement and opposed the probate proceeding, contending that the WILL dated 10.02.2003 is a forged and fabricated document and Ramsingari Devi never executed the same. It is their case that on the date of execution of the unregistered WILL, i.e. 10.02.2003, deceased was seriously ill and in fact she was not in her senses. Ramsingari Devi was hospitalized in Navjeevan Nursing Home, Giridih from 03.02.2003 till 07.02.2003 and, ultimately, expired on 16.02.2003, thus, these circumstances clearly suggest that she was not in a position to execute the WILL. They stated that a partition suit was filed against the mother of the appellant being Partition Suit No. 31 of 2003, in which preliminary decree, carving out the share, has already been passed on 03.06.2008 by Sub Judge IV, Giridih.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, six issues were framed by the Trial Court, which are as follows:
(II) Is the Will dated 10.2.2003 executed by Ramsingari Devi?
(III) Was Ramsingari Devi in sound health of body and mind at the time of alleged execution of Will?
(IV) Was the Will dated 10.2.2003 executed by free Will of Ramsingari Devi?
(V) Is the petitioner/applicant entitled to Probate of Will dated 10.2.2003?
(VI) To what relief or reliefs if any petitioner/applicant entitled too?
5. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant, namely, AW-1 Dilchand Mahtha, AW-2 Umesh Pandey, AW-3 Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh, AW-4 Satyadeo Singh and AW-5 Mahavir Singh.
6. Evidence on affidavit of one witness, Sudhir Kumar Paswan was filed. He was one of the attesting witness and proved the contents of the WILL dated 10.02.2003, but, he was not cross examined by the opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 due to the protest of the lawyers. The unregistered WILL was exhibited as Exhibit 1. Death certificate of Ramsingari Devi is Exhibit 2 and both the sale deed through Ramsingari Devi purchased the property were exhibited as Exhibits 3 and 4.
7. On behalf of the opposite parties, six witnesses were examined and certified copy
The proof of an unregistered WILL must dispel all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution; failure to do so results in denial of probate.
The execution and integrity of a Will can be upheld despite minor discrepancies or the presence of the beneficiary at signing, provided proper attesting witnesses confirm its authenticity.
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
