SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Ori) 117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.B. Panda, J.
MST. RADHA HOTA - APPELLANT
Versus
DUTIKA SATPATHY AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
First Appeal No. 147 of 1977
Decided On : 22-06-1979

Advocates Appeared:
R.C. Patnaik, P.K. Misra and A.K. Padhi, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent

A document 30 years old and produced from proper custody is presumed to be genuine.

Headnote:

INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 90 - PROBATE - GRANT OF - WILL - GENUINENESS AND VALIDITY - PRESUMPTION OF - DOCUMENT 30 YEARS OLD - CUSTODY - PROPER CUSTODY - EXECUTION AND ATTESTATION - PROOF OF - ATTESTING WITNESS - HANDWRITING - IDENTIFICATION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 68 - SECTION 69.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the dismissal of her suit for grant of probate of a registered will dated 28-9-1946. The testator died on 23-12-1946. The will was resisted by the other three daughters of the testator on the ground that it was not a genuine will and that their father was not mentally and physically fit to execute a will at that time.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the will was duly executed and attested, and that the presumption of genuineness attached to it had not been rebutted. The court also held that the testator was mentally and physically fit to execute the will.

Issues: 1. Whether the alleged will is genuine and valid?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that a document 30 years old and produced from proper custody is presumed to be genuine. The court also relied on Section 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act, which provide that a document required by law to be attested must be proved by the handwriting of one attesting witness, if no such witness can be found. The court found that the will was duly executed and attested, and that the presumption of genuineness attached to it had not been rebutted.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and probate was granted.

JUDGMENT :

K.B. Panda, J. - The Plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of her suit based on an application u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a probate of a registered will dated 28-9-1946 (Ext. 1/a).

2. The testator is one Madanmohan who admittedly died on 23-12-1946 while he was aged about 71. The beneficiary, now the propounder of the will, is his daughter named Mst. Radha Hota. It is resisted by the other three daughters of late Madanmohan on the ground that it is not a genuine will and that their father was not mentally and physically fit to execute a will of the nature as alleged at that time while he was in sinking health. Be it stated here that another daughter of late Madanmohan has remained indifferent.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge framed four issues of which the material one is issue No. 3 which runs thus:

3. Whether the alleged will is genuine and valid?

The Plaintiff examined four witnesses of whom herself is P.W. 3 and the Defendants examined two witnesses of whom D.W. 2 Jogendra Satpathy is the husband of one of the sisters named Dutika and D.W. 1 is his co-villager.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the execution and attestation of the will has not been properly proved; that there are accompanying suspicious circumstances regarding free execution of the will; that the will (Ext. 1/a) had not been produced at any time before during abolition of Bhogra proceedings and settlement proceedings and that there was no justification for executing the will in favour of one of the daughters to the exclusion of the others.

5. The will (Ext. 1/a) was scribed by the deed-writer Sridhar Udgata on 28-9-1946 at Patna State as it then was. The stamp papers worth Rs. 15/- (six sheets in all) have been obtained in the name of Madanmohan the very day on 28-9-1946. The two attesting witnesses are Anandamohan Bohidar and Bihari Lal. The registration and execution of the will was identified on behalf of the Plaintiff by Anandamohan Bohidar of Bolangir and Bihari Lal of Bhaler. It is in evidence that the scribe or the deed and the two attesting witnesses are all dead. The Plaintiff examined a petition-writer (P.W. 2) who has identified the handwriting of the scribe Sridhar Udgata and one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Anandamohan Bohidar who was also a fellow deed-writer in the Ex state of Bolangir. The document Ext. 1/a was tendered in evidence on 21-2-1977. Thus by the time it was tendered, it had become a document of more than 30 years old. As such the presumption of genuineness arising out of any such document should follow. Admittedly, it has come from the custody of the propounder who was the only daughter attending to the diseased testator. The learned Court seems to have lost sight of the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1963 which provides that:

Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the band-writing of any particular person, is in that person's hand writing, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.

Explanation: Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which and under the care of the person with whom, they wold naturally be, hut no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This explanation applies also to Section 81.

Their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1936 15 (Privy Council), have laid down that

The period of 30 years, u/s 90 of the Act is to be reckoned not from the date upon which the deed is filed in the Court but from the date on which, it having been tendered in e













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top