Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Meena Pradhan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kamla Pradhan & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3351 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO.17115/2010)
Decided on : 21-09-2023
(A) Indian Succession Act 1925 – Sections 63 and 276 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Grant of Probate/Letter of Administration – Requirements enshrined under Section 63 of Succession Act have to be categorically complied with for execution of Will to be proven in terms of Section 68 of Evidence Act – Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property – It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity – It speaks from death of testator – Since testator/testatrix, at the time of testing document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to circumstances in which Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out possibility of any manipulation – Will is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but test of satisfaction of prudent mind has to be applied. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
(B) Indian Succession Act 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of Will – Whenever there exists any suspicion as to execution of Will, it is responsibility of Propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as testator's last Will – In such cases, initial onus on Propounder becomes heavier – Test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where execution of Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances – One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence has to prove the same – However, even in absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes duty of Propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation – Suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid and not merely fantasy of doubting mind. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Issue that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding validity of a Will.
Findings of Court:
Both courts below have rightly noted that the relevant provisions were complied with, and given well-reasoned order upholding validity of the Will, the same does not warrant interference of this court. As far as the allegations of second marriage and bigamy are concerned, same is not a relevant factor in deciding the main lis, which is confined to the validity of the Will.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the validity of a Will are as follows:
A Will does not need to be proved with mathematical precision; instead, the court applies a test of the satisfaction of a prudent mind to determine its validity (!) .
When there are suspicions regarding the execution of a Will, the Propounder bears the responsibility to dispel all legitimate suspicions before the Will can be accepted as the testator's last Will (!) (!) .
Suspicious circumstances must be genuine, relevant, and valid, not merely based on doubt or suspicion without factual basis (!) .
The statutory requirements for executing a Will must be strictly complied with, including the testator signing or affixing his mark, the Will being signed in a manner intended to give effect to it as a Will, and the Will being attested by at least two witnesses who have observed the signing in the presence of the testator (!) (!) .
To prove the execution of a Will, at least one attesting witness who is alive, capable of giving evidence, and subject to court process must be examined (!) .
The witnesses must testify that the Will was signed or acknowledged by the testator and that they signed the Will in the presence of the testator (!) .
The presence of all witnesses at the same time is not necessary; it suffices that each witness saw the testator sign or acknowledge the Will in their presence and by his direction (!) (!) .
If there are any suspicions surrounding the Will's execution, it is incumbent upon the Propounder to provide a clear and convincing explanation to dispel those suspicions (!) (!) .
The core elements for validating a Will include that the testator signed it voluntarily, was of sound mind, was aware of its contents and effects, and that it was not executed under suspicious circumstances (!) .
In the specific case, the evidence indicated that the Will was duly executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind, voluntarily, and in compliance with legal requirements. The testimony of an attesting witness confirmed the proper execution, and there was no evidence suggesting the testator lacked mental capacity or that the Will was executed under undue influence or suspicious circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
Allegations such as second marriage or bigamy are considered irrelevant to the main issue of the Will’s validity and are therefore not entertained in this context (!) .
The courts below correctly upheld the validity of the Will, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the statutory and legal requirements for the Will’s validity had been satisfied (!) .
These points summarize the essential legal principles and the factual findings relevant to the validity of the Will as discussed in the document.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: There was one Bahadur Pradhan who married Meena Pradhan (Defendant-2/Appellant No.1 herein) with whom he had two children namely, Ravi Kumar (Defendant-3/Appellant No.2 herein) and Ku. Sushma (Defendant-4/Appellant No.3 herein). Allegedly, he divorced his first wife and solemnised another marriage with Kamla Pradhan (Plaintiff-1/Respondent No.1 herein) who gave birth to a child namely Ku. Ritu (Plaintiff-2/Respondent No.2 herein). Bahadur Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘testator’), seven days before his death (07.08.1992), executed a Will on 30.07.1992 in the presence of two witnesses namely Lok Bahadur Thapa (not examined) and Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2).
2. After the death of the testator, the Plaintiffs filed a case for receiving the testator’s dues wherein a succession certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No.1 by VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 05.07.1995. Proceedings stood concluded with the reversal of such an order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in terms of order dated 17.11.1995, quashing the entire proceedings, observing the authenticity and genuineness of the Will, in existence to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
3. Pursuant to this order of the High Court, proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Succession Act’) for a grant of Probate or Letter of Administration were initiated by both the Plaintiffs. The Defendants challenged the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiffs, also raising an objection about the testator having married Plaintiff No.1.
4. The Civil Court, Jabalpur, MP vide order dated 11.12.2001, in Succession Case No. 22/98 while relying on the testimony of an attesting witness, namely, Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2) upheld the validity of the Will in favour of the beneficiaries and accordingly issued Letter(s) of Administration. The said order was challenged by the Defendants. The High Court in repelling the Defendant’s contention of the Will being a forged document, by discussing the relevant statutory provisions and decisions of this Court, affirmed the order of the Civil Court.
5. Hence, the instant Appeal against the final judgment dated 25.03.2010 in Misc. Appeal No. 382 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, confirming the order of the Civil Court in Succession Case No.22/98 wherein it upheld the validity of the Will and issued Letters of Administration.
6. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding validity of a Will.
7. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions dealing with the validity and execution of the Will.
“Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
Execution of unprivileged wills - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness
The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, who must dispel any doubts regarding its execution, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances.
A Will must be proven with attesting witnesses as per statutory requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
The burden of proof for the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, who must produce the original document and meet statutory requirements for execution.
The execution of a Will is invalid if surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including the testator's compromised mental state and discrepancies in the document.
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
The due execution and attestation of a will, once proven, cannot be nullified by mere suspicion unless substantial evidence of invalidity is presented.
Proper execution and attestation of a will must conform to statutory requirements; suspicion surrounding its authenticity must be adequately dispelled by the propounder.
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
