9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the will (Ex.B/8). 2. Whether the will (Ex.B/8) was acted upon. 3. Allegations of forgery and undue influence. 4. Onus of proof regarding the execution and genuineness of the will. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Will (Ex.B/8) The primary issue was whether the will (Ex.B/8) executed by Siva was true and valid. The trial court found that the will was genuinely and voluntarily executed by Siva in favor of the defendants. The defendants provided testimonies from five witnesses, including the scribe and attesting witnesses, confirming that Siva was in a sound disposing state of mind and had executed the will on his own. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the plaintiffs had not challenged the validity or genuineness of the will in their pleadings and that the defendants had proved the will's execution. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, stating that the onus of proving the will lies with the propounder, which the defendants had satisfactorily discharged. 2. Whether the Will (Ex.B/8) Was Acted Upon The trial court found that the will was acted upon, as the defendants had taken possession of the properties bequeathed to them and were cultivating the lands. The lower appellate court, however, doubted the will's authenticity due to the non-registration of the will and the use of different ink for the signature and contents. The High Court reversed this finding, emphasizing that the will's execution was proved, and the plaintiffs had not alleged forgery or undue influence in the plaint. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the evidence showed Siva was mentally alert and had reasons to exclude the plaintiffs from his will. 3. Allegations of Forgery and Undue Influence The plaintiffs alleged that the will was forged and executed under undue influence. The lower appellate court supported this view, citing suspicious circumstances such as the defendants bringing attesting witnesses and the different ink used. However, the High Court found no basis for these allegations as they were not pleaded in the plaint. The Supreme Court reiterated that the onus of proving forgery or undue influence lies with the plaintiffs, who failed to provide evidence supporting their claims. The court noted that the defendants had satisfactorily explained the circumstances surrounding the will's execution. 4. Onus of Proof Regarding the Execution and Genuineness of the Will The Supreme Court emphasized that the propounder of a will must prove its execution, the testator's sound disposing state of mind, and the absence of suspicious circumstances. In this case, the defendants met these requirements by providing clear and satisfactory evidence. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had the burden of proving allegations of forgery or undue influence, which they failed to do. The court cited precedents, including Sm. Chinmoyee Saha v. Debendra Lal Saha and Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, to support its findings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the will (Ex.B/8) was valid, executed by Siva in a sound disposing state of mind, and acted upon by the defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations of forgery and undue influence were not substantiated, and the onus of proof had been correctly discharged by the defendants. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
