Back
1921 Supreme(Mad) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Chinnappa Pillai
Versus
Kailasam Pillai Late A Minor But
Decided On : 31 August, 1921
Implied revocation in a later will can lead to the revocation of an earlier will, as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
Testamentary Papers - Wills - 1. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 213, 215, 276 - The court found for the genuineness of both the alleged testamentary papers and admitted them both to probate. 2. The court examined the two wills in detail and found an implied revocation in the later will, leading to the revocation of the earlier will. The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only dated 2-1-14 annexed to 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.
Fact of the Case:
Two alleged testamentary papers of Venkatachalam Pillai, deceased, were in question. The District Judge found for the genuineness of both papers and admitted them both to probate. The court examined the history of the custody of the documents and found an implied revocation in the later will, revoking the earlier will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found for the genuineness of both the alleged testamentary papers and admitted them both to probate. The court also found an implied revocation in the later will, leading to the revocation of the earlier will. The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only dated 2-1-14 annexed to 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.
Issues: The genuineness of the wills, the revocation of the earlier by the later, and inferential intention to revoke.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and found an implied revocation in the later will, leading to the revocation of the earlier will. The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only dated 2-1-14 annexed to 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only dated 2-1-14 annexed to 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.
Key Points: - The court found that an implied revocation in a later will leads to the revocation of an earlier will, even without an express clause of revocation (!) (!) . - The court held that if the terms of the later will show an intention to dispose of property differently, the earlier document is revoked, even if the later will does not cover the whole subject matter (!) (!) . - The court determined that cumulative legacies in both wills would exceed the estate's value, making it impossible to admit both documents to probate (!) . - The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only, dated 2-1-14, annexed to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants (!) (!) . - The genuineness of both testamentary papers was established based on evidence that they were in the handwriting of the testator (!) (!) . - The court rejected the argument that inferential intention to revoke could be derived solely from surrounding circumstances apart from the documents themselves (!) . - The dispositions regarding the flower garden and the balance of property were found to be clearly inconsistent between the two wills (!) . - The court concluded that the testator's intention was that only the later will should be operative and the prior will should be revoked (!) .
What is the legal effect of an implied revocation in a later will on an earlier will under the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
What are the rights of the heirs regarding Letters of Administration when only the later will is found to be operative?
How to determine if a subsequent testamentary paper implies a revocation of a prior will based on inconsistent dispositions?
1. In this appeal two alleged testamentary papers of one Venkatachalam Pillai, deceased, who died on 26-8-14 are in question. They are dated respectively 24-1-13 and 2-1-14 and are marked as Exs. Al and A. The latter is propounded by a minor Kailasam Pillai, son of Venkatachelam by a concubine of his, Velliammai, by name. This, Kailasam Pillai applied to the District Court of South Arcot for leave to prove A and for the issue to him Letters of Administration with this will annexed. Al, the alleged earlier will, is propounded by respondents No. 3 and 4 who are two of the three sons of Thillainayagam Pillai brother of the testator, who was adopted into another family. The earned Disrict Judge found for the genuineness of both these papers, A and A1. and admitted them both to probate. He also found that the earlier will was not revoked by the later. Letters of Administration were granted jointly to the widow of deceased (Respondent No. 2) and respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Three questions are raised on this appeal.
1. The genuineness of the wills.
2. The revocation of the earlier by the later.
3. Inferential intention to revoke.
3. As to the first point, Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyer for the appellants, the divided brother of the testator and his son, frankly stated that he could not say the wills were forgeries, i.e., were not in the handwriting of the testator. We think it sufficient to say that we are satisfied from the evidence that the wills A(1) and A are in the handwriting of the testator. We were then asked to refuse Letters of Administration on the ground that the history of the custody of these documents was not satisfactory and was not such as to remove all doubt as to their genuineness. The story of the concubine, who is the only witness who saw the testator write and sign the wills, is that the two wills were given to her. After the death she put them into a box and gave them to her servant from whom 5th respondent took the wills. 5th respondent is the third of the sons of Thillainayagam Pillai mentioned above. There is evidence that after cremation the 3rd and 5th defendants and one Vadivelu Pillai (P.W. 2) and Monigar Ratam Pillai (P.W. 4) met and opened the box and took out the wills and read them. The wills were actually produced by Vadivelu Pillai in the court of the District Munsif of Mannargudi in O.S. No. 47 of 191 5 filed by Valliammai to recover these wills and other documents. On the other hand the 1st respondents (1st appellant here) account is that deceased gave him a box containing mortgage and other documents and that when the testator died there was no box by his side as described by the plaintiffs witnesses. The District Judge who has examined the evidence with care has come to the conclusion that the account given by 1st appellant, cannot be accepted and a further examination of the evince does not, lead us to a different conclusion. We therefore agree with the District Judge that there is no reason why these paper writings, A and Al, should not be received as the testamentary papers of the deceased.
4. The third point was not argued and we are not prepared to say that inferential intention to revoke i.e., any. conclusive evidence of Such intention, derived from evidence of surrounding circumstances apart altogether from any inference to be derived from the provisions in the documents themselves, is in any way established. If there is in fact an intention to revoke the earlier will by the latter it must be gathered from inferences drawn from the documents themselves.
5. This leads us to the second point which was argued at length before us. A somewhat detailed examination of the two wills will be necessary. The earlier one (A 1) was in favour of Ramasami Chetty the executor-who renounced, it begins " As I feel weak often and as the wills previously written by me are not operative, this will containing the following dispositions shall come into force after my life time." The testator sets out a list of pro
