Exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest in a Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances: SC
The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest in a Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.
Background
The probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother, having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, one set of legatees claiming under the Will have came up with the appeal.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian noted that the respondents contested the probate proceedings on the ground that their parents never executed any Will and that the elder son V.M. Chandrasekaran played a fraud by taking signatures of the mother on blank papers and fabricating the same into a Will and that in any case the testators had no right to dispose of the properties by way of a Will.
The court observed that the Probate Court was not convinced that the circumstances highlighted by the respondents raised any suspicion. Therefore, the court of original jurisdiction ordered the grant of probate. Further the High court reversed the Judgment.
The court said that the High Court completely overlooked all the aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning.
The court added that once it is found that the father Mannar Reddiar not only attested the mother’s Will and once it is found that in his own Will, which is a registered Will, the father had made a mention about the mother’s Will, all the suspicious circumstances sought to be projected would automatically fall to the ground.
The court stated that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.
The court said that it did not know how the High Court held the delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious circumstance. Exhibit P1 was executed on 30.01.1995 and the testatrix died on 14.08.1995. The father was alive till 08.08.2000. Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate of the said Will.
The court further added that the High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant about the time of registration of Will and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5.
The court held that the adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter in law at the time of execution of Will, has no basis in law.
The court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the Judgment of the Principal District Court, Vellore granting probate of both the Wills.
Case title: Swarnalatha & Ors. v/s Kalavathy & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022
