1954 (12) TMI 40 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Lawful and valid execution and attestation of the will.
2. Testamentary capacity of the testator at the time of the will's execution.
3. Execution of the will under undue influence and pressure.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Lawful and Valid Execution and Attestation of the Will:
The Additional District Judge initially ruled in favor of the first respondent on the issue of lawful and valid execution and attestation of the will. However, the appellant contended that the will was not validly attested. The Supreme Court noted that P.Ws. 1 and 2, the attestors, stated that the testator signed the will in their presence and they attested his signature. Although they did not explicitly state that they signed in the testator's presence, the circumstances suggested that all parties were present until the attestation was completed. The Court concluded that the will was duly attested, emphasizing that the attestation's validity depends on the evidence's circumstances, and the finding of due attestation by the lower courts was upheld.

2. Testamentary Capacity of the Testator at the Time of the Execution of the Will:
The appellant did not contest the finding that the testator had testamentary capacity when he executed the will. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the testator had the requisite mental capacity at the time of executing the will.

3. Execution of the Will Under Undue Influence and Pressure:
The main contention was whether the will was executed under undue influence by the first respondent. The Court cited legal precedents, stating that the burden of proving undue influence lies on the party alleging it. The testator's background as a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, his strained relationship with the appellant due to an inter-caste marriage, and the correspondence indicating his feelings were examined. The Court found no evidence of undue influence, noting the testator's strong will and consistent attitude towards the appellant. The will's terms, though seemingly harsh, were consistent with the testator's character and circumstances. The Court also dismissed the appellant's reliance on the testimony of Indira, the testator's daughter, as unreliable and insufficient to prove undue influence. The Court reiterated that not all influences are unlawful, and the testator's free volition must be established for a will to be valid. The evidence showed that the will was the testator's free volition, not influenced unduly by the first respondent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision, rejecting the appellant's contentions on both undue influence and attestation. The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the grant of probate to the first respondent.