Back
2008(2) JLJ 247
(SUPREME COURT)
S.B. Sinha and S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Anil Kak v. Ku. Sharada Raje and others
Civil Appeal No. 2965, 2974, 2975 and 2977 of 2008 : against the order of Single Judge, M.P. High Court Bench at Indore;
Decided on 24.4.2008.
Maharaja Tukoji Rao Holkardied on 21.5.1978 leaving behind four daughters, Sharada Raje Holkar, Sita Raje Ghatge, Sumitra Raje Dalvi and Sushila Raje Holkar. He had executed a Will on 27.11.1942 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the testatrix. Indisputably, a letter of administration had been granted in favour of the testatrix in respect of the Will dated 27.11.1942 made in her favour by her husband. Apart from the properties inherited by the testatrix from her husband, she had also her own Stridhan properties. She purported to have executed a Will on or about 23.8.1978 in favour of Kumari Sharada Raje. She, however, allegedly executed another Will on or about 4.11.1992 by reason whereof, she is purported to have revoked the Will executed by her on 23.8.1978 and/or the Codicil. She appointed one K.R.P. Singh and the appellant Anil Kak as joint executors. She also appointed Mr. T.N. Unni, her Chartered Accountant, to assist the executors in administering and distributing the estate and executing the said Will. She categorized her properties in two parts, viz., Part A and part B. [Para 3
Held : Once the Court is required to satisfy its conscience, existence of suspicious circumstances playa prominent role. The Will, as noticed hereinbefore, is in two parts. Whereas the first part deals with the property belonging to the husband of the testatrix, the second part deals with the properties which purportedly belongs to her. Distribution of assets, however, was not specifically stated in the Will. They were to be made as per the appendices annexed thereto. The appendices which were required to be read as a part of the main Will so as to effectuate the intention of the testatrix have not been proved. The Will by its own cannot be given effect to. The Will must be read along with the appendices. No doubt in construing a Will armchair rule is to be adopted. The Will was, therefore, not complete. His not correct to contend that the appendices were very much in existence at the time when the Will was executed. Existence of a document must mean the actual existence. [Para 42
(2) Succession Act, 1925 -- S.64 -- rule of incorporation of papers by reference -- document referred in a Will must be in existence at the time of its execution u it is an integral part of the Will. 2007(14) Scale 263 and Halsbury‘s Laws of England, Fourth Edn. para 817 relied on. [Para 30 & 31
(3) Succession Act, 1925 -- Ss.63 and 64 -- construction of Will -- testator intention is gathered from consideration of whole Will -- documents referred to in Will not existing -- Will is not proved -- even a part of Will can be given effect if it is severable. (2007)7 SCC 183 and Halsbury‘s Laws of England, Fourth Edn. Vo1.50, P.332 relied on. 1971 (1) MLJ 127 approved. [Para 34.1 to 34.3
(4) Succession Act, 1925 -- S. 63(c) -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 68 -- Will -- proof of.
The execution of a Will does not only mean proving of the signatures of the executors and the attesting witnesses. It means something more. A Will is not an ordinary document. It although requires to be proved like any other document but the statutory conditions imposed by reason of section 63(c) of the Act and section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be ignored. JT 2006(9) SC 415, 2006(14) Scale 186, JT 2002(1) SC 74, JT 2005(1) SC 547, 2007(6) SCR 264, JT 2007(8) SC 86 and JT 2007(12) SC 248 relied on. [Para 39.1
(5) Succession Act, 1925 -- S.276 -- order granting probate -- is judgment in rem -- Court must satisfy its conscience before it passes such order. [Para 41
¼1½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 63] 64 rFkk 246 && foy && fu"iknu ds le; egRoiw.kZ nLrkostksa dk vfLrRo ugha && vr% foy iw.kZ ugha rFkk lafnX/k ifjfLFkfr;k¡ Hkh fo|eku && izkscsV ls lgh bUdkj fd;k x;kA egkjktk rqdkthjko gksYdj dh e`R;q 21-5-1978 dks gqbZ rFkk og vius ihNs pkj iqf=;k¡ ‘kkjnk jkts gksYdj] lhrk jkts ?kkVxs] lqfe=k jkts nyoh vkSj lq‘khyk jkts gksYdj NksM+ x,A mUgksaus viuh leLr laifÙk olh;rdrkZ ¼Lo- egkjkuh ‘kfeZ‘BkckbZ gksYdj½ ds i{k esa olh;r djus gq, 27-11-1942 dks foy fu"ikfnr dh FkhA fufoZoknr% muds ifr }kjk muds i{k esa dh xbZ foy fnukad 27-11-1942 ds laca/k esa olh;rdrkZ ds i{k esa iz‘kklui= iznku fd;k x;k FkkA vius ifr ls fojklr esa izkIr laifÙk ds vfrfjDr olh;rdrkZ dh viuh L=h/ku dh laifÙk FkhA muds }kjk 23-8-1978 dks ;k mlds vklikl dqekjh ‘kkjnk jkts ds i{k esa foy fu"ikfnr dh tkuk rkRif;Zr gSA rFkkfi] vfHkdfFkr :i ls mUgksaus 4-11-1992 dks ;k mlds vklikl ,d vU; foy fu"ikfnr dh ftlds ek/;e ls muds }kjk 23-8-1978 dks fu"ikfnr foy vkSj@;k ØksMi= izfrlaâr fd;k tkuk rkRif;Zr gSA mUgksaus fdlh ds-vkj-ih- flag rFkk vihykFkhZ vfuy dkd dks la;qDr fu"iknu fu;qDr fd;kA mUgksaus vius pkVZMZ vdkmaVsaV Jh Vh-,u- mUuh dks Hkh laink ds iz‘kklu vkSj forj.k esa vkSj mDr foy fu"ikfnr djus esa fu‘ikndksa dh lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr fd;kA mUgksaus viuh laifÙk nks Hkkxksa vFkkZr~ Hkkx d vkSj Hkkx [k esa oxhZd`r dhA ¼iSjk 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % U;k;ky; ls viuh var‘psruk dk lek/kku djus dh vis{k gks rc lafnX/k ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh fo|ekurk dh izeq[k Hkwfedk gksrh gSA foy] tSlk ,rfLeu~iwoZ /;ku fn;k x;k gS] nks Hkkxksa esa gSA tcfd izFke Hkkx olh;rdrkZ ds ifr dh laifÙk ds ckjs esa gS] f}rh; Hkkx ml laifÙk ds ckjs esa gS tks rkRif;Zr :i ls olh;rdrkZ dh FkhA rFkkfi] vkfLr;ksa ds forj.k dk foy esa fofufnZ"V :i ls dFku ugha fd;k x;k gSA og mlls mikc) ifjf‘k‘Vksa ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk FkkA olh;rdrkZ dk vk‘k; dk;kZfUor djus ds fy, ftu ifjf‘k‘Vksa dk eq[; foy ds :i esa i<+k tkuk visf{kr Fkk og lkfcr ugha fd, x, gSaA Lo;a foy izHkkoh ugha dh tk ldrh] foy ifjf‘k‘Vksa ds lkFk i<+uk vko‘;d gSA fuLlansg] foy ds vFkkZUo;u esa vkeZps;j fu;e vaxhd`r fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA vr% foy iw.kZ ugha FkhA ;g ladFku djuk lgh ugha gS fd ftl le; foy fu"ikfnr dh xbZ rc lpeqp ifjf‘k‘Vksa dk vfLrRo FkkA nLrkost ds vfLrRo dk vFkZ okLrfod vfLrRo gksuk vko‘;d gSA ¼iSjk 42 ¼2½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 64 && funsZ‘k }kjk dkxt lfEefyr fd, tkus dk fu;e && foy esa funsZf‘kr nLrkost dk foy ds fu"iknu ds le; vfLrRo gksuk vko‘;d gS && og foy dk vfHkUu vax gSA 2007¼14½ Ldsy 263 rFkk gSYlcjh d`r ykWt vkQ baXySaM] prqFkZ laLdj.k] iSjk 817 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 31 ¼3½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 63 rFkk 64 && foy dk vFkkZUo;u && olh;rdrkZ dk vk‘k; laiw.kZ foy ij fopkj dj ,df=r djuk gksrk gS && foy eas funsZf‘kr nLrkostksa dk vfLrRo ugha && foy lkfcr ugha && foy dk ,d Hkkx Hkh izHkkoh fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn og i`FkDdj.kh; gksA ¼2007½7 ,l lh lh 183 rFkk gSYlcjh d`r ykWt vkQ baXySaM] prqFkZ laLdj.k] ftYn 50] i`"B 332 voyafcrA 1971¼1½ ,e ,y ts 127 vuqeksfnrA ¼iSjk 34-1 ,oa 34-3 ¼4½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 63¼x½ && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 68 && foy && lcwrA foy ds fu"iknu dk vFkZ dsoy fu‘iknd vkSj vuqizek.kd lk{khx.k ds gLrk{kj lkfcr djuk ugha gSA bldk vFkZ blls vf/kd dqN gSA foy lkekU; nLrkost ugha gksrkA ;fn bls vU; fdlh Hkh nLrkost dh Hkk¡fr lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS rFkkfi vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 63¼x½ vkSj Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 68 }kjk vf/kjksfir dkuwuh ‘krsZa vuns[kh ugha dh tk ldrhaA ts Vh 2006¼9½ ,l lh 415] 2006¼14½ Ldsy 186] ts Vh 2002¼1½ ,l lh 74] ts Vh 2005¼1½ ,l lh 547] 2007¼6½ ,l lh vkj 264] ts Vh 2007¼8½ ,l lh 86 rFkk ts Vh 2007¼12½ ,l lh 248 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 39-1 ¼5½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 276 && izkscsV iznku djus dk vkns‘k && loZca/kh gksrk gS && ,slk vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ U;k;ky; dks viuh var‘psruk dk lek/kku djuk vko‘;d gSA
Sinha, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 18.5.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore dismissing two applications for grant of probate/letters of administration with the copy of the annexed Will in respect of the assets of late Maharani Sharmishthabai Holkar (hereinafter called as "the testatrix"), the widow of late Maharaja Tukoji Rao Holkar, former ruler of the erstwhile Holkar State.
3. Maharaja Tukoji Rao Holkar died on 21.5.1978 leaving behind four daughters, Sharada Raje Holkar, Sita Raje Ghatge, Sumitra Raje Dalvi and Sushila Raje Holkar. He had executed a Will on 27.11.1942 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the testatrix. Indisputably, a letter of administration had been granted in favour of the testatrix in respect of the Will dated 27.11.1942 made in her favour by her husband. Apart from the properties inherited by the testatrix from her husband, she had also her own Stridhan properties. She purported to have executed a Will on or about 23.8.1978 in favour of Kumari Sharada Raje. She, however, allegedly executed another Will on or about 4.11.1992 by reason whereof, she is purported to have revoked the Will executed by her on 23.8.1978 and/or the Codicil. She appointed one K.R.P. Singh and the appellant Anil Kak as joint executors. She also appointed Mr. T.N. Unni, her Chartered Accountant, to assist the executors in administering and distributing the estate and executing the said Will. She categorized her properties in two parts, viz., Part A and part B.
3.1 Part A consisted of those properties which were bequeathed in her favour by her husband and Part B consisted of properties other than those specified in Part A. By reason of the said Will, the said two sets of the properties were to be administered separately. Whereas Part A properties were bequeathed in favour of four daughters, Part B properties were sought to be bequeathed in favour of her four grand children.
4. Indisputably, the said Will was purported to have been attested by one Gita Sanghi, who examined herself as PW5 and one Baljit Bawa, who was not examined. The Will contained a few appendices. Whereas the attesting witnesses purported to have put their signatures in each page of the Will, they did not put any signature on the appendices to the said Will.
5. With a view to appreciate the relationship of the parties, we may notice the family tree, which is as under:
Maharaja Tukoji Rao Holkar
Maharani Sharmishtha Bai Holkar
Sharada Raje Sita Raje Ghatge Sumitra Raje Dalvi Sushila Raje
Holkar Holkar
Vijayendra Sangeeta Gangesh Jagat Ashish
Ghatge Ghatge (D) Kumari Bingley Dalvi
Umika Arjun
Ghatge Jaideep Devina
5.1 Appellant Anil Kale is the husband of Gangesh Kumari and sonin-law of Sumitra Raje Dalvi. Appellant Arjun Kale is son of the appellant Anil Kale.
6. Before proceeding further, we may notice that whereas the application for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will dated 23.8.1978 annexed, filed by Kumari Sharada Raje was marked as Suit No.2 of 1998; Anil Kale and Kumar Rampratap filed an application for grant of probate in their capacity as executors appointed under the said Will dated 4.11.1992, which was marked as Suit No.3 of 1998. Both the suits were directed to be consolidated. The parties examined their witnesses in both the suits by adducing common evidence.
7. Whereas the Will dated 23.8.1978 was a very sort document, the Will dated 4.11.1992 was a detailed one running into six typed pages besides three long appendices and two statements containing her investments in various shares within an outside the country.
8. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment refused to grant probate and/or letters of administration in respect of both the Wills.
9. Whereas civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2791, 5831 and 9080 of 2006 have been filed against that part of the
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
