The execution of a Will must meet statutory requirements, and appellate courts cannot interfere with factual findings unless there is a clear legal error.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.147/2015 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court Vaikom, against the concurrent judgments and decrees in the suit and A.S.No.50 of 2019 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The suit was filed by the 1^st respondent herein and the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents were the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in the suit. The parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.

2. The suit is filed for the declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, recovery of possession and mesne profits, and also for a consequential prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff claimed title based on a Will executed in his favour, and it is alleged in the plaint that, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was residing away from the plaint schedule property, the defendants obstructed the plaintiff's entry into the petition-schedule property and falsely claimed right over it.

3. Defendants denied the execution of the Will and contended that the plaintiff had no possession over the plaint schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 24.11.2018. The appeal preferred by the first defendant against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, hence the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

4. The plaintiff had filed a caveat and appeared through Counsel, at the stage of admission. The trial court records were called for and the matter was heard at the stage of admission.

5. The appellant has framed the following questions of law as substantial questions of law in the memorandum of second appeal.

(1) Without satisfactorily removing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding that the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act are satisfied by the propounder?

(2) Without specifically analysing the evidence on the face of the document itself, whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding that the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act are satisfied by the propounder of the Will?

(3) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in upholding the perverse finding of fact by the trial court?

(4) Whether the non-consideration of vital suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will by the trial court warranting the interference of this court?

(5) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding the judgment and decree of the trial court without any legal scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence?

6. Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , inGovernment of Kerala and another v. Joseph and others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 961], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“16. For an appeal to be maintainable under Section 100 , Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’, for brevity) it must fulfil certain well-established requirements. The primary and most important of them all is that the appeal should pose a substantial question of law. The sort of question that qualifies this criterion has been time and again reiterated by this Court. We may only refer to Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari 2001(3)SCC 179 wherein this Court observed as follows:

“12. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law