Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 639
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sethi and S.S.Nijjar JJ.
Harbans Singh
Versus
Hardayal Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 216 of 1993,
R.F.A. No. 254 of 1979,
Decided On : APRIL 19, 1996
The onus of proving a will is on the propounder or beneficiary of the will, and the existence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus of proof very heavy. The propounder must remove the suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record.
Headnote:
WILL - EXECUTION - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - SHIFTING - REMOVAL OF SUSPICIONS - TESTATOR'S MENTAL CAPACITY - DISPOSING MIND - FREEDOM FROM EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES - PRESUMPTION OF SANITY - REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID WILL - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 63 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose over the validity of a will executed by Sultan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the legal heirs of Sultan Singh, filed a suit for possession of land and cash deposits left by him. The defendants claimed title to the land based on the will. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding the will to have been executed under suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the onus of proving the will was on the propounder or beneficiary of the will, and that the existence of suspicious circumstances made the onus of proof very heavy. The court found that the propounder had failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, and that the will had not been properly executed.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by Sultan Singh was validly executed. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of Sultan Singh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for proper execution of a will, it must be established that: (a) the testator must have a disposing mind free from all extraneous influences with sound mental mind; (b) the testator is presumed to be sane having a mental capacity to make a valid Will until contrary is proved; (c) the Will should be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as incorporated in Section 63 of the Act read with Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act. In other words, the testator should have signed or affixed his mark to the Will in the presence of the two witnesses who are required to see the testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will and each of the witnesses should sign the Will in the presence of the testator; (d) the onus of proof of the Will is on the propounder or beneficiary of the Will; (e) the existence of suspicious circumstances make the onus of proof very heavy and such circumstances are required to be removed by the propounder before the document is accepted as a last Will of the testator; (f) the mode of proving the Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except the special circumstances as incorporated in Section 63 of the Act; and (g) in order to ascertain the free disposing mind free from extraneous considerations, the whole of the attending circumstances in a particular case are required to be taken note of.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the appellate court.
R.P.Sethi and S.S.Nijjar JJ.
1. The will dated 3.12.1974 executed by Sultan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, was the subject matter of a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs in the court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Zira which was dismissed vide judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24.10.1978. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned in this appeal. It is submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is against law and facts and thus liable to be quashed.
2. The Facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondents, namely, Hardial Singh and others filed a suit for possession of land measuring 269 kanals 5 marlas situated is village Pandori Arian Tehsil Zira on the basis of their title claimed through Sultan Singh son of Ganda Singh. A further declaration was sought for the plaintiffs entitlement to the payment of an amount of about Rs. 50,000/- lying in deposit in Post Office and Central Bank of India, Dharampur. The land in dispute was admittedly in the ownership; of Sultan Singh. The plaintiffs claimed to be the 4th decree collaterals .of Sultan Singh. The defendants were alleged to have got the land mutated in their favour on the basis of the Will, the subject matter of dispute between the parties. It was alleged that even if the Will was proved to have been executed, the same was false and fictitious and Procured under suspicious circumstances. The claim of the plaintiffs was also resisted on the ground that they were not in any way related to Sultan Singh and the will executed by said Sultan Singh was stated to have been validly executed on 3.12.1974.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sultan Singh?
2. Whether Sultan Singh made a valid will in favour of the defendant?
3. Whether the defendants are the collaterals of Sultan Singh?
4. Relief.
4. After affording the parties opportunity to lead evidence and hearing rival contentions the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree 24.10.1973. In appeal, the learned Single Judge held the Will to have been executed under suspicious circumstances and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for joint possession to the extent of half share in the land and the cash deposits left by Sultan Singh.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the courts have held the parties to be the legal heirs of Sultan Singh being his 4th degree collaterals. In case the Will is proved to have been validly executed, the plaintiff/respondents herein would not be entitled to grant of any relief and if the Will is found to have been executed under suspicious circumstances then the judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be upheld.
6. While considering the meaning, scope and effect of the will, this Court in Smt. Bhagya Wati Jain and Anr. v. General Public and Ors., L.P.A. 1159 of 1985 decided on 2.2.1994, reported as (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 649, held :-
"Under the Act will has been defined to mean a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. Under the General Clauses Act will includes a codicil making a voluntary posthumous disposition of property intending to take effect after the death of the testator. According to Halsburys Laws of England, a Will or testament is a declaration in a prescribed manner of the intention of the person making it with respect to the matters which he wishes to take effect upon or after his death. A Will made for disposal of property of the testator after his death and of appointing an executor, for appointing a testamentary guardian, for exercising a power of appointment and for revoking or altering a previous Will. The essential characteristics of a Will are : a) There must be a legal decla
