Introduction
This article examines a recent judgment from the Supreme Court of India, which delves into the intricate legal principles surrounding the validity and genuineness of an unregistered Will, particularly when challenged by suspicious circumstances. The case, Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023), underscores the high burden placed on the propounder of a Will to not only prove its due execution but also to satisfactorily remove any doubts cast upon its authenticity. The judgment provides valuable insights into the evidentiary requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the context of testamentary disputes.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The case originated from a partition suit, O.S. No. 142/1992, filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 seeking a 5/7th share in the properties of the deceased Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. The appellants (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) were unsuccessful in this suit, as well as in the subsequent appeal (A.S. No. 368/2002) before the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, which confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated September 27, 2001. Both the Trial Court and the High Court declined to accept the appellants’ case, which was based on an unregistered Will dated April 6, 1990. This appeal was filed against the High Court’s judgment.
Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar had married twice. His first wife, Rajammal (plaintiff No. 4), had three sons (Muruganandam, Ganesh Murthy, Kannan) and one daughter (Mahalakshmi), who are plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1-5. While his marriage to Rajammal was subsisting, Balasubramaniya married Leela (appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1), making her an illegitimate wife. Sivakumar and Lt. Mageshwaran (appellant Nos. 2 and 3/defendant Nos. 2 and 3) are Balasubramaniya’s illegitimate sons through Leela.
Earlier, Balasubramaniya had instituted O.S. No. 504/1986 against his first wife and children. This suit was later compromised, leading to a partition deed dated December 4, 1989, where properties were divided into four schedules. The first schedule properties were allotted to Balasubramaniya himself, while the second, third, and fourth schedules were allotted to his sons, first wife, and minor daughter, respectively. Balasubramaniya died on November 28, 1991.
The current suit (O.S. No. 142/1992) pertains to the properties allotted to Balasubramaniya in the partition deed. The plaintiffs contended that defendant No. 1 (Leela) was not entitled to any share as an illegitimate wife. They claimed a 1/7th share each, totaling 5/7th share, in Balasubramaniya’s properties, with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also having a 1/7th share each. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 attempted to appropriate rents and harvests, causing prejudice to their shares, and claimed that any Will created by Balasubramaniya in their favor was a forgery. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in their written statement, produced the unregistered Will dated April 6, 1990, stating that Balasubramaniya was harassed by the plaintiffs, leading to the partition deed, and that the first schedule properties belonged to Balasubramaniya, entitling only defendant Nos. 2 and 3 after his demise.
The Trial Court framed issues including the validity of the Will dated April 6, 1990, and the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a share. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, which was challenged by the defendants in the first appeal. The Appellate Court also framed issues regarding the Will’s validity and the plaintiffs’ share. The High Court dismissed the appeal, declining to accept the Will.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were:
- Whether the Will dated April 6, 1990, was valid and genuine.
- Whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution were sufficiently removed or explained.
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a 5/7th share in the properties of Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (Defendant Nos. 1-3):
- The Courts below erred in finding the Will not genuine and shrouded in suspicious circumstances.
- The appellants succeeded in establishing the Will’s execution in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by examining two attesting witnesses.
- The Courts failed to consider the prior dispute (O.S. No. 504 of 1986) and the partition deed of December 4, 1989, where properties were allotted to Balasubramaniya, which he then bequeathed to the appellants through the Will.
- Balasubramaniya intended to give properties to his second wife and children born through her, and the Will reflected this intention.
- The circumstances relied upon by the Courts to deem the Will suspicious were unsustainable and insufficient to cast doubt on its genuineness.
Respondents’ Arguments (Plaintiff Nos. 1-5):
- Mere proof of a Will’s execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not, by itself, make it genuine and worthy of acting upon.
- The Courts below correctly found concurrently that the Will was not genuine due to suspicious circumstances.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court noted that the fate of the appeal depended on the genuineness of the Will and whether the suspicious circumstances were adequately removed. It reiterated the settled position that while the propounder must establish execution, the objector must pinpoint suspicious circumstances, which the propounder then has to remove. The Court acknowledged that the legitimacy of the second wife and children was irrelevant as the question did not relate to the partition of ancestral properties, and Balasubramaniya had already partitioned his properties, allotting three out of four schedules to his first wife and children.
The Court meticulously examined the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the lower courts:
- Active Role of Beneficiary and Concealment: The first appellant (DW-1), a beneficiary and mother of other beneficiaries, played an active role in the Will’s execution but concealed this fact. The stamp papers for the Will were bought in DW-1’s name from Tenkasi, yet she denied participation in the execution. The courts concurrently found her denial incorrect.
- Contradictory Recitals on Testator’s Health: The Will itself contained contradictory statements regarding Balasubramaniya’s health, stating both “full conscious, with good memory” and “I suffer from heart disease and got treatment from several doctors”. DW-1 also testified that her husband’s health was bad and his life was in danger, prompting the Will’s execution in Madurai. The courts found no evidence of alleged threat necessitating the Will’s execution.
- Non-matching Signatures: The testator’s signature in Ext.A1 (partition deed) and Ext.B2 (Will) did not match.
- Non-examination of Typist and Scribe: The person who typed the Will and the scribe were not examined. While non-examination of the scribe is not always a suspicious circumstance, it was considered in these specific circumstances.
- Incongruity in Place of Execution: The Will stated it was executed at Madurai, while the testator’s residence was Tenkasi. DW-1 stated she was not present at Madurai and unaware of her husband executing a Will there. The fact that stamp papers were purchased in DW-1’s name from Tenkasi further raised suspicion regarding the place of execution.
- Failure to Prove Testator’s Understanding of Contents: There was nothing on record to show that the testator executed the Will after understanding its contents. Although DW-2 (attesting witness) deposed that a notary public read the Will to Balasubramaniya, the Will itself lacked such a notation. The Court questioned why the Will needed to be read over if the testator was in good health and dictated it himself. DW-2, the attesting witness, was DW-1’s brother, and DW-1 claimed DW-2 gave her the Will in Tenkasi, despite the Will purportedly being executed in Madurai.
The Court affirmed the legal mandates under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act for proving a Will, emphasizing that mere registration does not validate it. It noted that DW-2, an attesting witness and DW-1’s brother, was examined, but his testimony, combined with the other circumstances, was insufficient to prove the Will’s execution as required. The Trial Court correctly held that the propounder must establish the testator’s sound disposing mind and understanding of the dispositions.
The Court found that the defendants failed to prove that the testator executed the Will with a full understanding of its contents. Given the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court on the validity and genuineness of the Will, and the absence of perversity in their appreciation of evidence, the Court found no reason to interfere with their conclusions.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court concluded that the appellants failed to prove the execution of the Will dated April 6, 1990, and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution were not removed or explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Consequently, the finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to their share, and that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also received a 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties, stood.
FAQs:
1. What makes a Will suspicious in court?
A Will may be deemed suspicious if there are doubts about its execution, such as the testator’s mental state, active involvement of beneficiaries, contradictions in the document, or unusual circumstances surrounding its signing.
2. Who is responsible for proving a Will is genuine?
The person presenting the Will, known as the propounder, has the initial responsibility to prove its valid execution and genuineness according to legal requirements.
3. What happens if a beneficiary plays a major role in a Will’s creation?
If a beneficiary takes a significant role in preparing or executing a Will, it can raise suspicion, and the court will require stronger proof to ensure the testator acted freely and understood the contents.
4. How do contradictions in a Will affect its validity?
Internal contradictions within a Will, such as conflicting statements about the testator’s health or mental capacity, can cast doubt on its authenticity and lead a court to scrutinize its genuineness more closely.
5. What is the importance of attesting witnesses in validating a Will?
Attesting witnesses are crucial for validating a Will, as they certify the testator’s signature and mental capacity at the time of execution; their testimony is often essential in proving the Will’s authenticity in court.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.