Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : J.C.VERMA
SURENDRA BHATIA - Appellant
Versus
PUNAM BHATIA - Respondent
C. M. A. 245 Of 2000
Decided On : 04/26/2001
SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - [INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925] - [SECTIONS 372] - [WILL] - [ATTESTATION] - [SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES] - [BURDEN OF PROOF] - [PROBATE] - [MENTAL CAPACITY] - [UNDUE INFLUENCE] - [FREE WILL] - [EVIDENCE] - [EXPERT OPINION] - [HANDWRITING] - [MEDICAL RECORDS] - [TESTIMONY] - [DEPOSITION] - [ADMISSIONS] - [ESTOPPEL] - [FRAUD] - [FORGERY] - [MARRIAGE] - [DIVORCE] - [FOREIGN LAW] - [JURISDICTION] - [CONFLICT OF LAWS] - [ANCESTRAL PROPERTY] - [JOINT PROPERTY] - [COSTS] - The Court held that the Will propounded by the appellant was not genuine and valid due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The Court found that the testator's mental capacity and free will were in doubt, and that the Will was not properly attested. The Court also held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the validity of the Will. The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision to grant a succession certificate to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Smt. Poonam Bhatia, filed a suit for succession certificate against the appellant, Surendra Bhatia, and others, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased, Sudershan Bhatia, and entitled to inherit his property. The appellant contested the suit, denying the marriage and claiming that the deceased had executed a Will bequeathing his property to him. The trial court found in favor of the respondent and granted her the succession certificate. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that the appellant's claim of a Will was not genuine. The Court held that the Will was not properly attested and that the testator's mental capacity and free will were in doubt. The Court also found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the validity of the Will.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased? 2. Whether the Will propounded by the appellant was genuine and valid? 3. Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to establish the validity of the Will?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased based on the following factors: - The appellant's admission in the pleadings and evidence that the respondent and the deceased were married. - The testimony of witnesses who confirmed the marriage. - The production of a marriage certificate. 2. The Court held that the Will propounded by the appellant was not genuine and valid due to the following suspicious circumstances: - The Will was not properly attested. - The testator's mental capacity and free will were in doubt. - The Will was not drafted in the testator's handwriting. - The Will was not signed by the testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses. - The Will was not registered. 3. The Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the validity of the Will. The Court noted that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to rebut the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision to grant a succession certificate to the respondent.
J. C. VERMA
( 1 ) S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2000 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur by Surendra Bhatia - defendant. In the suit filed by Smt. Poonam Bhatia by which decree he had allowed the application of the respondent plaintiff of grant of succession certificate; whereas Appeal No. (defect) 219/2000 is also directed against the same judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 by Smt. Swarn Anand D/o Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia who was one of the defendant in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam.
( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia w/o Late Sudershan Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia D/o Late Sudershan Bhatia R/o 7, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur had filed a suit for succession certificate against Surendra Bhatia, Smt. Swam Anand sons and daughters of Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia wife of Shri K. B. Bhatia.
( 3 ) SUIT was filed u/s. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stating therein in the application that the deceased Sudershan Bhatia, husband of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and father of Kumari Smita Bhatia had property at Jaipur and Delhi. The deceased Sudershan Bhatia died on 21-4-1989 in Frankfurt, Germany and being sole heirs, they had claimed the succession certificate about the assets and liability of the deceased. The application was resisted by the defendants, now the appellant i. e. brother and sister of the deceased. The claim was being resisted on the basis of Will dated 17-4-1989 (Ex. A-1) purported to have been executed by Sudershan Bhatia, with further submissions that the relations between the deceased and Smt. Poonam Bhatia were strained and, therefore, Sudershan Bhatia did not want to give any property to Smt. Poonam Bhatia. The Will is said to have been executed by the deceased Sudershan Bhatia in the hospital of Frankfurt in Germany. The following issues were framed; (1) Whether the deceased had executed any Will and because of the Will the applicants are not entitled to succession certificate; (2) whether the will was legal and effective; (3) whether the probate is necessary and whether will was to be attested according to Germany law or it is otherwise illegal.
( 4 ) THE trial Court had decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant and against the defendant-appellants and the remaining issues against the defendants holding that Will was not validly executed and was written in the suspicious circumstance.
( 5 ) THE appellant states that the order of the trial Court in not believing the will was erroneous. It is also submitted that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was, perhaps, not legally married to Sudershan Bhatia and reliance is placed for this purpose on Ex. 15 i. e. the passport of the plaintiff where her name has been entered as Smt. Poonam Kapur wife of Priyaveer Kapur of New Delhi and also the ticket for journey from Delhi to Frankfurt on 2-11-1987 when she had accompanied late Sudershan Bhatia. In the statement given in the Court, plaintiff had stated that the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985; it is contended that in case the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985, then in such situation, the plaintiff could not have identified herself to be Mrs. Poonam Kapur in the passport.
( 6 ) THE next submission made by the counsel is that the averments in the application u/s. 372 had not been proved. It is also submitted that even though Will was produced by the present appellant; the onus should have been put on the plaintiff to prove that she was entitled to succession certificate. It is further submitted that the Will has been properly proved by the statement by DWs attesting witnesses with Mrs. Brigitti Rose Morsi Gorki and DW-3 Dr. Ure Faber and in such circumstances there was no reason for the trial Court for not believing the Will. It is stated that if the Will is believed, in that situation Late Sudershan Bhatia had expressely debarred the plaintiff to inherit any property and he
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
