The execution of a will must be convincingly proven; without satisfactory evidence and amidst inconsistencies, the court may deem it invalid.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act - Section 42 - Proof of will executed by Narayanan Achari disputed - Plaintiffs allege absence of testamentary capacity and claims of undue influence, fraud, and coercion - Court examines admissibility of evidence and contradictory witness statements regarding execution of Will. (Paras 24, 26, 36)

(B) Legal principles regarding testamentary capacity and burden of proof outlined - In absence of suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to prove will's validity, which may require corroborative evidence. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought partition of properties claimed by Narayanan Achari with the defendants asserting rights based on a disputed Will executed in 1995. (Paras 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The Court highlighted inadequate proof of the Will's execution and testamentary capacity of the testator, resulting in the rejection of the defendants' claims regarding the Will. (Paras 44, 50)

Issues: Whether the execution of the Will was valid; whether the defendants sufficiently proved threats to the Will's authenticity; requirement of witnesses for the Will's execution compliance. (Paras 15, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the defendants failed to satisfactorily prove the Will amidst suspicious circumstances, emphasizing the necessity of overwhelming evidence to substantiate any claims against natural heirs. (Paras 25, 30)

Result: Regular Second Appeal partly allowed, modifying the decree to contest the partition claim concerning the residential property as it relates to the 1st plaintiff. (Paras 50)

JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendants 1, 3 & 4 in a suit for partition.

2. The respondents 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs in the suit. During the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal, the 3^rd respondent/3^rd plaintiff died, and his legal representatives are impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 10 as per order dated 19.12.2022 in I.A.No.3/2019.

3. The parties are referred according to their status before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of plaint A & B schedule properties belonged to Pappu Achari Narayanan Achari in equal shares of 1/9 each among the plaintiffs (7Nos) and the defendants 1 & 2, who are the children of Narayanan Achari who died on 16.11.1998 claiming that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Narayanan Achari as per Ext.A1 Deed; and that wife of Narayanan Achari predeceased Narayanan Achari.

5. According to the plaintiffs, both plaint A & B schedule properties are lying as a single compact plot; that Narayanan Achari and the first plaintiff constructed a house in the plaint schedule properties utilizing their funds; the plaint A schedule property has an extent of 4 cents with a building therein. Plaint B schedule property is a property having an extent of 7.800 cents of land and the building therein.

6. There is no dispute among the parties to the suit regarding the status of the parties as children of Narayanan Achari, the death of Narayanan Achari and his wife, and the title of Narayanan Achari over the plaint schedule properties.

7. The defendants opposed the suit claim by filing Written Statement that Narayana Achari had executed Ext.X2 Will (Ext.B2 is the certified copy) on 28.06.1995 with regard to the plaint schedule properties and it was kept with the District Registrar, Kollam and after his death, the said Will was registered as Will No.126/1998 of SRO Kollam; that the said Will came into force; that as per the said Will, Plaintiffs 4, 6 & 7, who are female children, are not having any right over the plaint schedule properties, Plaint A schedule property is allotted to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 and the defendants 1 & 2 and Plaint B schedule property and the building therein were allotted to the share of defendants 1 & 2; that the defendants have effected mutation with respect to the plaint B schedule property and it is in the joint possession of the defendants and they are residing there with family members; that Plaint A and B Schedule Properties are separated by definite boundaries and survey stones; that plaint A schedule property is in joint possession of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 5 and the defendants; that plaint A schedule property alone is partible and it is to be partitioned into 6 equal shares and each of the shares is to be allotted to plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and the defendants 1 & 2. They raised a Counter Claim for partition of plaint A schedule property into 6 equal shares by allotting 1/6 share each to plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and defendants 1 & 2, for a declaration that the building in plaint B schedule property and trees therein are owned by the defendants, for eviction of the 5^th plaintiff from the residential house in Plaint B schedule property and for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from entering into plaint B schedule property and from committing waste therein.

8. The plaintiffs filed Written Statement to the Counter Claim denying the execution of the Will alleged to have been executed by Narayanan Achari, citing the improbability of the execution of the Will contending that there was no need of circumstances for executing such a will; alleging undue influence, coercion and fraud in the execution of the Will contending that Narayanan Achari was in the control of defendants 1 and 2 since the year 1991; that Narayanan Achari was fully dependent on the defendants during the year 1995; that he had mental diseases; that he was mentally and physically incapable and hence there is no chance of executing a Will by himself; and challenging the testa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81940

The execution of a will must be convincingly proven; without satisfactory evidence and amidst inconsistencies, the court may deem it invalid.

Cases Referred (7)