2006 (4) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and genuineness of the Will.
2. Allegations of coercion and undue influence.
3. Non-disclosure of interested parties in the probate application.
4. Physical and mental state of the testatrix.
5. Execution and attestation of the Will.
6. Exclusion of other legal heirs from the Will.
7. Discrepancies in the testatrix's signatures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Genuineness of the Will:
The respondent questioned the validity and genuineness of the Will executed by Mrs. Solomon Lazarus, citing her deteriorated physical and mental condition from 1970 onwards. The Division Bench found several suspicious circumstances, including the advanced age of the testatrix (83 years) and her physical infirmities due to multiple falls and surgeries. The Will was drafted by an advocate, but neither the advocate nor the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will was examined as witnesses, raising doubts about whether the Will was read and explained to the testatrix. Additionally, the testatrix's signatures on the Will were inconsistent with her usual signature, further casting doubt on the Will's authenticity.

2. Allegations of Coercion and Undue Influence:
The respondent alleged that the Will was executed under duress and coercion by the appellant and other family members residing with the testatrix. The learned Single Judge initially found no evidence of coercion or undue influence. However, the Division Bench noted the appellant's significant influence over the testatrix due to her dependence on him after her falls and surgeries, suggesting that the appellant may have taken advantage of her vulnerable state to influence the Will's execution.

3. Non-disclosure of Interested Parties in the Probate Application:
The initial probate application by Joseph Antony Lazarus did not disclose the names of other interested parties, leading to the revocation of the probate granted to him. The respondent, Mrs. A.J. Francis, was not made a party to the proceedings despite being a daughter of the testatrix, which led to the revocation of the probate and re-numbering of the application to consider the Will's validity.

4. Physical and Mental State of the Testatrix:
The Division Bench emphasized the testatrix's advanced age and physical infirmities, including two falls resulting in broken thigh bones and subsequent surgeries. Despite the appellant's claim that she was mentally alert, the Division Bench found the testatrix's physical condition and dependence on the appellant significant in questioning the Will's genuineness.

5. Execution and Attestation of the Will:
The learned Single Judge initially found that the Will was properly executed and attested, with no suspicious circumstances. However, the Division Bench highlighted the absence of key witnesses, such as the advocate who drafted the Will and the Sub-Registrar who registered it, which could have provided conclusive evidence of the Will's execution and attestation.

6. Exclusion of Other Legal Heirs from the Will:
The Division Bench noted the exclusion of two sons from the Will without any explanation, despite the testatrix mentioning the contributions of the appellant and Cecil Lazarus. This exclusion raised further suspicion about the Will's authenticity and the fairness of its provisions.

7. Discrepancies in the Testatrix's Signatures:
The Division Bench found discrepancies in the testatrix's signatures on the Will, noting that she signed as Mrs. M. Solomon Lazarus on the Will, whereas she usually signed as Mrs. Solomon Lazarus. This inconsistency, along with the presence of two different signatures on each page of the Will, contributed to the doubt regarding the Will's genuineness.

Conclusion:
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed the learned Single Judge's findings, dismissing the appellant's application for grant of probate due to the cumulative effect of suspicious circumstances, including the testatrix's physical and mental state, the exclusion of other heirs, discrepancies in signatures, and the absence of key witnesses. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the revocation of the probate.