2021 Supreme(SC) 787

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
L. Nageswara Rao, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Murthy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
C. Saradambal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010
Decided on : 10-12-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When a Will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between plaintiff and defendant.
(2) Genuineness of Will must be proved by proving intention of testator to make testament and for that, all steps which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be proved by placing concrete evidence before Court.
(3) While reversing or modifying judgment of a Trial Court, it is duty of Appellate Court to reflect in its judgment, conscious application of mind on findings recorded supported by reasons, on all issues dealt with, as well as contentions put forth, and pressed by parties for decision of Appellate Court.
(4) Right to appeal is a creature of statute – Right to file appeal by an unsuccessful party assailing judgment of Original Court is a valuable right.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of Will – Propounder of Will must examine one or more attesting witnesses and onus is placed on Propounder to remove all suspicious circumstances with regard to the execution of Will – When a Will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between plaintiff and defendant – What generally is an adversarial proceeding, becomes in such cases, a matter of Court's conscience and then, true question which arises for consideration is, whether, evidence let in by Propounder of Will is such as would satisfy conscience of Court that Will was duly executed by Testator – It is impossible to reach such a satisfaction unless party which sets up Will offers cogent and convincing explanation with regard to any suspicious circumstance surrounding making of Will – It may be true that Will was a registered one, but same by itself would not mean that statutory requirements of proving Will need not be complied with. (Para 30)

(B) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 276 – Suit for grant of Letters of Administration – No evidence of doctor who was treating testator has been placed on record so as to prove that testator was in a sound and disposing state at the time of execution of Will – Doubt is created as to whether testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of making of testament which was fifteen days prior to his death – Fact that testator died within a period of fifteen days from date of execution of Will, casts a doubt on thinking capacity and physical and mental faculties of testator – Said suspicion in mind of Court has not been removed by Propounder of Will(first Plaintiff) – Genuineness of Will must be proved by proving intention of testator to make testament and for that, all steps which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be proved by placing concrete evidence before Court – In instant case, there is no evidence as to whom testator gave instructions to, to write Will – Scribe has also not been examined – It is also not known as to whether assistance of an Advocate or any other trustworthy person was taken by testator in order to make testament and bequeath property to only son of testator – Respondents-plaintiffs have not been successful in proving validity of Will in accordance with law inasmuch as suspicious circumstances surrounding very execution of Will have not been cleared by any cogent evidence – Will, not being a valid document in eye of law, no Letters of Administration can be granted to respondents-plaintiffs – Trial Judge was right in dismissing suit – Division Bench of High Court has simply reversed judgment of Trial Judge in absence of re-appreciation of evidence and without giving findings on questions of fact as well as on applicable law and by not reasoning as to why judgment of Trial Judge was erroneous – Judgment and decree of Division Bench of High Court set aside and judgment of Trial Judge restored. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 36, 42 and 43)

(C) Appeal – Disposal of – Parameters – Judgment could be brief and succinct if Appellate Court is to dismiss an appeal and affirm judgment and decree of Trial Court – But when judgment and decree of Trial court is to be reversed then it is incumbent upon Appellate Court to dwell into the matter in detail and to give reasons for reversing the same – Assigning reasons not only makes judgment wholesome, but is also necessary in order to deduce and lead to just conclusions – Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse, affirm or modify findings and judgment of Trial Court – However, while reversing or modifying judgment of a Trial Court, it is duty of Appellate Court to reflect in its judgment, conscious application of mind on findings recorded supported by reasons, on all issues dealt with, as well as contentions put forth, and pressed by parties for decision of Appellate Court – When Appellate Court affirms judgment of a Trial Court, reasoning need not to be elaborate although reappreciation of evidence and reconsideration of judgment of Trial Court are necessary concomitants – But while reversing a judgment of a Trial Court, Appellate Court must be more conscious of its duty in assigning reasons for doing so. (Paras 36 and 37)

(D) Appeal – Disposal of – Parameters – Right to appeal is a creature of statute – Right to file appeal by an unsuccessful party assailing judgment of Original Court is a valuable right – Duty is cast on Appellate Court to adjudicate a first appeal both on questions of fact and applicable law – Reappreciation of evidence in light of contentions raised by respective parties and judicial precedent and law applicable to case have to be conscientiously dealt with. (Para 41)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 08th December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in O.S.A. No. 470 of 2002 by which the judgment and decree passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 1994, wherein Trial Judge of the High Court had dismissed the suit for grant of Letters of Administration, was set aside and the said suit was decreed.

Findings of Court:

Division Bench of High Court has simply reversed the judgment of Trial Judge in the absence of re-appreciation of evidence and without giving findings on questions of fact as well as on the applicable law and by not reasoning as to why judgment of Trial Judge was erroneous.

Result : Appeal allowed.