Will – Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a Will – Ascertainment – Suit by the appellant-nephew of the testator of the Will that his deceased uncle bequeathed certain land to him and 1st respondent is not testator’s lawfully wedded wife, and 2nd respondent was not their adopted son – Suit by the respondents seeking declaration that 1st respondent is testator’s lawfully wedded wife, and 2nd respondent is their adopted son – Trial court held that the 1st respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of the testator but 2nd respondent was not their adopted son; and declared that the Will propounded by the testator was genuine and by virtue of the Will, the appellant was the lawful owner of the suit land – Upheld by the appellate court – In appeal, the High Court held that the 1st respondent was entitled to the possession of the land since the suspicious circumstance, non-mention of the wife of the testator and the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will exposed absence of ‘free disposing mind’ of the testator – Correctness:
Held: Deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession – However, prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs – Suspicious circumstance, non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the Will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case – It cannot be said testator had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with 1st respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the Will – Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself – Cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator – Non-mention of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, shows that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant – No evidence to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the Will – Thus, the impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 16, 18-22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain (2020) 16 SCC 209.. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.