2000 (12) TMI 927 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and execution of the Will.
2. Registration of the Will.
3. Requirement of probate or letters of administration under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act.
4. Allegations of coercion and undue influence.
5. Non-production of the original Will.
6. Ownership of properties at the time of execution of the Will.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Execution of the Will:
The respondents filed O.P. No. 138 of 1986 for granting letters of administration for a Will alleged to have been executed by Ippuru on 8.5.1967. The appellant contested the execution, claiming Ippuru was not of sound mind and that the Will was executed under coercion and undue influence. The District Judge found that the Will (Ext. A1) was validly executed by Ippuru and directed granting letters of administration in favor of the first respondent. Despite the death of the attestors, the respondents proved the execution through other evidence, including testimonies from PW. 2 (taxi driver), PW. 4 (first respondent), and PW. 5 (Sub Registrar).

2. Registration of the Will:
The Will was registered at Ippuru's house by the Sub Registrar on the same day as a sale deed executed by the second wife in favor of Ippuru. The appellant argued that the registration was improper due to the lack of a statement justifying the urgency for the Sub Registrar's visit. However, the court held that the registering officer's subjective satisfaction regarding the special cause for attending the residence is sufficient, and the absence of a statement does not invalidate the registration.

3. Requirement of Probate or Letters of Administration under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act:
Section 213 mandates that no right as an executor or legatee can be established without probate or letters of administration. The court clarified that this requirement applies to establishing rights in court but does not postpone the vesting of rights under the Will. The amendment to Section 213, which included "Indian Christians," means that for Wills executed by Christians, obtaining probate is not necessary for establishing rights in court. The court referred to various judgments, including Syndicate Bank v. Sqji Chacko and Sheonath Singh v. Madanlal, to support this interpretation.

4. Allegations of Coercion and Undue Influence:
The appellant alleged that the Will was executed under coercion and undue influence by Vareed. However, there was no evidence to support this claim. The court found that Ippuru was of sound disposing mind at the time of execution, as corroborated by the Sub Registrar (PW. 5).

5. Non-production of the Original Will:
The original Will was not produced, and the respondents claimed it was taken by the appellant under the pretense of showing it to her husband. The court found this explanation plausible, given the familial relationship and circumstances. The appellant's argument that the non-production indicated revocation by Ippuru was dismissed due to lack of evidence of intentional destruction by the testator.

6. Ownership of Properties at the Time of Execution of the Will:
The court examined whether Ippuru had ownership of the properties bequeathed in the Will at the time of its execution. The Will mentioned properties (items 4 to 7) acquired under a sale deed (Ext. B1) registered on the same day as the Will. Under Section 47 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, transfer of ownership occurs upon registration. Since Ext. B1 was registered after the Will, Ippuru did not have ownership of those properties at the time of executing the Will. Consequently, the bequest of items 4 to 7 to Vareed was invalid.

Conclusion:
The court modified the trial court's decree, directing that letters of administration with a copy of Ext. A1 Will be issued in favor of the 6th respondent (6th plaintiff), who received items 1 to 3 under the Will. The 6th respondent must execute a bond for Rs. 80,000/- with one surety for the like amount, and comply with other directions in the trial court's decree. The direction regarding payment of costs was confirmed.