Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of Will Amidst Paternity Dispute and Suspicious Circumstances

Lucknow, UP: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently dismissed a second appeal in Juggi Lal vs. Guru Prasad , affirming the concurrent decisions of two lower courts that invalidated a Will executed by one Lodhe in favour of his nephew, Juggi Lal . Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar found no perversity in the lower courts' findings regarding the plaintiff Guru Prasad 's parentage and the fraudulent execution of the Will. The court emphasized the high degree of proof required to validate a Will, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and reiterated the limited scope for interference in concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Case Background: A Tangled Web of Paternity and Inheritance

The legal battle, spanning decades, commenced when Guru Prasad filed a suit for cancellation of a Will dated 19.09.1980, purportedly executed by Lodhe, bequeathing all his properties to his nephew, Juggi Lal (the appellant). Guru Prasad claimed to be the son of Lodhe and Mata Dei, and thus Lodhe's rightful heir. He alleged that Lodhe, an illiterate and rustic man addicted to liquor and in poor health, was unduly influenced by Juggi Lal to execute the Will, which suspiciously excluded Lodhe's two living wives and son without any stated reason.

Juggi Lal , the defendant-appellant, contested Guru Prasad 's paternity, asserting that Guru Prasad was the son of Mata Dei and her previous husband, Chhedi. He claimed Lodhe executed the Will in his favour out of free will, as he had looked after Lodhe.

The trial court and the first appellate court had both ruled in favour of Guru Prasad , finding him to be Lodhe's son and setting aside the Will due to suspicious circumstances and undue influence.

Key Arguments

Appellant's Contentions ( Juggi Lal ): * Challenged the finding on Guru Prasad 's parentage, citing a Birth Certificate and Pariwar Register. * Argued that Lodhe's liquor consumption was common in villages and didn't imply incapacity to execute a Will. * Asserted the Will was duly proved by an attesting witness and Lodhe would have raised objections during registration if it were fraudulent. * Claimed violation of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by the lower appellate court for not framing points of determination.

Respondent's Contentions ( Guru Prasad ): * Presented substantial evidence (High School certificate, Caste Certificate, letters from Lodhe, money order receipts) to prove he was Lodhe's son. * Argued the Pariwar Register suggesting different parentage was unreliable and procured for the case. * Contended the Will was executed under undue influence by Juggi Lal , who exploited Lodhe's ill health and vulnerable state. * Maintained that the lower appellate court had substantially complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by addressing all issues.

High Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the lower courts' reasoning, addressing the substantial question of law: "Whether the finding recorded by courts below, regarding parentage of plaintiff and also regarding fraud in execution of Will, is against the evidence on record and perverse.”

On Paternity of Guru Prasad

The Court noted that both lower courts had thoroughly examined evidence, including school records, caste certificates, and letters where Lodhe addressed Guru Prasad as his son, and money order receipts showing Guru Prasad supported his father. Discrepancies in the appellant's evidence, such as a Pariwar Register contradicted by a caste certificate signed by the same Gram Pradhan, were also considered. The High Court found the concurrent findings on Guru Prasad being Lodhe's son to be well-supported by evidence.

On the Validity of the Will and Suspicious Circumstances

The Court highlighted several suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution: * Exclusion of Natural Heirs: The Will disinherited Lodhe's two living wives and his son, Guru Prasad , with whom he shared a good relationship, without providing any justification. The judgment noted: "This Court also is unable to comprehend as to how a man would exclude his wives in the Will, with whom he had no differences, that too without any reference... if he was executing the Will in conscious state of mind with his free will and consent." * Testator's Condition: Evidence indicated Lodhe was elderly, illiterate, a habitual liquor consumer, and seriously ill, having lost his capacity to understand things. * Beneficiary's Role: Juggi Lal , the beneficiary, was in a position to influence Lodhe. Contradictory statements from defense witnesses regarding Lodhe's illness further deepened suspicion. * Vague Property Description: The Will vaguely described the bequeathed property, suggesting the testator might not have been fully aware of its contents.

The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents: * Dhannulal and others versus Ganeshram and another (2015) 12 SCC 301 : Proof of a Will requires a higher degree of evidence, ensuring the testator understood and approved its contents. * Meena Pradhan versus Kamla Pradhan and Another (2023) 9 SCC 734 : Outlined principles for proving a Will, emphasizing the propounder's duty to dispel all suspicious circumstances, even without explicit allegations of fraud, to satisfy the "test of judicial conscience." The Court noted, "One who alleges fraud... has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation."

The Court found that the appellant failed to dispel these serious suspicions.

On Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC

The appellant argued the lower appellate court's judgment was vitiated for not framing specific points of determination. The High Court, citing Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (2024) 6 S.C.R. 594 and its own ruling in Badri and others versus Jata Shankar and Another , held that substantial compliance is sufficient. Since the lower appellate court had considered all issues framed by the trial court and recorded independent findings, there was no fatal flaw.

On Scope of Second Appeal and Concurrent Findings

The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless they are "totally perverse." Citing Suryakunwari versus Nanhu and Others (2019) 37 LCD 2346 , among other cases, the Court found the lower courts' findings to be based on evidence and not perverse.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the findings of the courts below regarding Guru Prasad 's parentage and the fraudulent execution of the Will were not against the evidence on record, nor were they perverse. The substantial question of law was decided against the appellant.

Holding that the appeal was filed on "misconceived and baseless grounds," Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar dismissed the second appeal, thereby upholding the cancellation of the Will and affirming Guru Prasad 's rights. No order as to costs was made.

Order Date: 28.02.2025