9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1432 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for partition and allotment of 5/7th share filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein - entitlement to a share in the first schedule of the properties - validity of will dated 06.04.1990 - joint enjoyment of the suit properties of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 - entitlement to 5/7th share in the property. Whether the appellant succeeded in proving the execution of the Will and if so whether the appellants who disputed its execution and also challenged the Will on the ground of existence of suspicious circumstances would make the same unreliable and not worthy for proceeding further? - HELD THAT - There can be no doubt with respect to the manner in which execution of a Will is to be proved. In the light of plethora of decisions including the decisions in MOTURU NALINI KANTH VERSUS GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH L. RS. 2023 (11) TMI 1346 - SUPREME COURT and in DEREK AC LOBO AND ORS. VERSUS ULRIC MA LOBO (DEAD) BY L. RS. AND ORS. 2023 (12) TMI 1413 - SUPREME COURT this position is well settled that mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It is not the case of the appellant that the Will dated 06.04.1990 is a registered one. Section 68 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution of a Will. It is true that in the case at hand DW2 was the attesting witness who was examined in Court. Therefore the question is whether they had deposed to the effect that the Will in question was executed in accordance with sub-rules (a) to (c) thereunder - The Trial Court rightly held that the propounder of the Will has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature out of his own free will. The very case of the first defendant viz. DW1 is that the testator was being looked after by her. She was residing at Tenkasi and if the testator used to stay there with her and her deposition is to the effect that she was not aware that her husband was going to execute a Will at Madurai and then the proven fact is that two stamp papers on which 2 pages of the Will were typed were purchased in the name of the first defendant from Tenkasi create some suspicion. As noted earlier the health of testator was in bad condition and if so the case that the execution of the Will was at a far away place from Madurai is also a matter casting suspicion. Evidently it was taking into consideration all the aforesaid and such other circumstances that the High Court arrived at the finding that the execution of the Will itself was not proved. The circumstances surrounding the Will were also concurrently held as suspicious. Conclusion - The evidence of DW2 cannot be taken sufficient to prove the execution of the Will in question in the manner it is required to be proved and to accept it as genuine. It can only be held that the defendants have failed to prove that the testator executed the Will by putting his signature after understanding its contents. In such circumstances when the findings are concurrent how can the findings on the validity and genuineness of the Will in question by the Trial Court and the High Court be interfered with. There is no reason to hold that the appreciation and findings are absolutely perverse warranting appellate interference by this Court. It is also to be noted that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 also got 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties. Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the first schedule of the properties. (ii) The validity of the Will dated 06.04.1990. (iii) Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint enjoyment of the suit properties. (iv) Entitlement of the plaintiffs to a 5/7th share in the property. (v) The reliefs available to the plaintiffs. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (i) Entitlement to a Share in the First Schedule Properties: The plaintiffs claimed a share in the properties originally belonging to Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, arguing that they were co-owners of the properties. The defendants contended that the first schedule properties belonged solely to Balasubramaniya and were not subject to partition. The Trial Court and the High Court found that the properties in question were self-acquired by Balasubramaniya and that the partition deed dated 04.12.1989 allocated these properties to him. The courts concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 5/7th share, with the remaining 2/7th share going to the children of Balasubramaniya through his second wife, Leela. (ii) Validity of the Will Dated 06.04.1990: The defendants produced an unregistered Will dated 06.04.1990, claiming it bequeathed the properties to them. The plaintiffs challenged the Will's validity, alleging it was forged and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The legal framework required the Will to be executed in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The courts found multiple suspicious circumstances, including the active role of the first defendant, contradictory recitals on the testator's health, non-matching signatures, and the absence of evidence proving the testator understood the Will's contents. The courts concluded that the Will was not genuine and was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. (iii) Joint Enjoyment of the Suit Properties: The plaintiffs argued that they and the defendants were in joint possession of the properties. The defendants denied this, asserting exclusive ownership through the Will. The courts found that the properties were jointly enjoyed as co-owners, based on the evidence presented, including the partition deed and the lack of credible evidence supporting the defendants' claims of exclusive ownership through the Will. (iv) Entitlement to 5/7th Share: The plaintiffs claimed a 5/7th share based on their status as legitimate heirs. The courts upheld this claim, recognizing the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' shares and dismissing the defendants' arguments based on the contested Will. (v) Reliefs Available to the Plaintiffs: The courts granted the plaintiffs' request for partition and allocation of their 5/7th share, rejecting the defendants' claims under the Will. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court upheld the Trial Court and High Court's findings, emphasizing the following principles: - The execution of a Will must adhere to statutory requirements, and mere compliance with formalities does not guarantee its genuineness. - Suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will must be adequately explained by the propounder to establish its validity. - The existence of a partition deed and the allocation of properties therein were significant in determining the plaintiffs' entitlement. The final determination was that the Will dated 06.04.1990 was not valid, and the plaintiffs were entitled to their claimed share in the properties.
|
