Will – Suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will – Plea of – Tenability – Two separate Wills left behind by a married couple (testators) – Both spouses executed a Will each – Appellants are the successors-in-interest of the pre-deceased elder / first son of the testators – Respondent no.1 and.2 are respectively the daughter and other / second son of the testators – District Court rejected allegations of respondents about suspicious circumstances surrounding the Wills and granted probate of both the Wills in favour of the appellants – High Court reversed judgment of District Probate Court citing various suspicious circumstances including that there was total exclusion of Respondent no.1-daughter from the bequests – On appeal, held: The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances – In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children – Court does not apply Art. 14 of the Constitution to dispositions under a Will – While reversing the judgment of District Probate Court, the High Court recorded certain suspicious circumstances, but each such circumstance, neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion – High Court completely overlooked all the above aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning – Judgment of the District Court, granting probate of both the Wills, restored – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 14.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. While reversing the Judgment of the Probate Court, the High Court recorded certain suspicious circumstances, but each such circumstance, neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion. The High Court completely overlooked all the above aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning. [Paras 16, 17 and 18][852-F; 854-C, F]
2. Once it is found that the father not only attested the mother’s Will (Exhibit P-1) and once it is found that in his own Will (Exhibit P-2), which is a registered Will, the father had made a mention about the mother’s Will, all the suspicious circumstances sought to be projected would automatically fall to the ground. [Para 20][854-H; 855-A]
3. When it was not even the case of the respondents that the testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the High Court found fault with the appellants for not disclosing the nature of the ailments suffered by them. The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. The reasons given in Exhibit P-1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way. If Exhibit P-1 (Will) had been fabricated on blank papers containing the signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion for the father to make a mention in his own Will (Exhibit P-2) about the execution of the Will by the mother. [Para 21] [855-A-C]
4. It is not known how the High Court held the delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious circumstance. Exhibit P-1 was executed on 30.01.1995 and the testatrix died on 14.08.1995. The father was alive till 08.08.2000. Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate of the said Will. After the death of Mannar Reddiar [testator-father] on 08.08.2000, the appellants obviously had no support, due to the fact that the first son of the testators V.M. Chandrasekaran (husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3) had pre-deceased the father Mannar Reddiar, he having died in October-1999. The occasion for the appellants to seek probate of the Will arose only when the respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005. Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate. [Paras 22, 23][855-C-F]
5. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Exhibit P-2 (Will) and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW-1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter-inlaw at the time of execution of Exhibit P-2, has no basis in law. [Para 24][855-F-H]
6. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled. Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article
14 to dispositions under a Will. [Para 25][855-H; 856-B-C]
7. It is not difficult for an objective mind to understand the reasons behind the daughter and the second son of the testators coming together. Under both the Wills Exhibit P-1 and P-2, the properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The first son V.M. Chandrasekaran is now no more. Admittedly respondent no.1’s daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar-respondent no.2 (second son of testator). Therefore, if the bequest under the two Wills go, V.M. Sivakumar’s family may eventually receive 2/3rd share of the properties, which is more beneficial for V.M. Sivakumar than getting half share under the Wills. The High Court completely overlooked this aspect and started analyzing the Wills w ith suspicion. [Para 26][856-D-E]
8. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Judgment of the District Court, granting probate of both the Wills, is restored. [Para 27][856-F]
Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 544 : H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 : [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR
426 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.