ANIL KAK versus KUMARI SHARADA RAJE & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 24-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1009 
ANIL KAK 
v. 
KUMAR! SHARADA RAJE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 2008) 
APRIL 24, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: 
ss 63, 87 and 103 - Execution of Will - Genuineness of 
A 
B 
- Widow executing Will in favour of one of her daughters -
C 
Execution of another Will 14 years later- Will in two parts, first 
part dealing with property belonging to her husband and 
second part with her Stridhan properties - Appendices 
appended to the Will - Application for letters of administration 
by beneficiary of first Will - Application for grant of probate by D 
ioint executors - Rejected by High Court - On appeal, held: 
Distribution of assets were to be made as per the appendices 
which were to be read as a part of the main Will - Will could 
not be given effect by its own - At the time of the purported 
execution of Will, appendices did not form part of Will - Thus, 
E 
Will was not complete - Intention of testator could not be 
effectuated -
Will was surrounded by suspicious 
circumstances -Hence, interference not called for 
s. 63 - Execution of Will - Mode and manner of proving 
- Held : Signatures of executors and attesting witnesses are 
F 
to be proved - Also the statutory conditions imposed by s. 63 
and s. 68 of 1872 Act are to be proved - In the event of 
existence of suspicious circumstances, party seeking probate 
or letters of administration is to adduce evidence to the 
satisfaction of the court- Court to adopt a rational approach -
G 
It has to satisfy its conscience - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 68. 
s. 64 - Incorporation of paper by reference - Principle of 
- Held: Document incorporated by reference in another when 
1009 
H 
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A it is referred to, as if it would form integral part thereof - It is to 
avoid unnecessary repetition of same documents in original 
documents-Document must be in existence - Executor must 
know its contents - It cannot be brought into existence later 
on. 
B 
s. 87 - Efficacy of Will - Intention of the testator -
Ascertainment of- Held: Intention of the testator must be found 
out from the entire Will - It has to be read as a whole -
Endeavour should be made to give effect to each part of it -
When one part cannot be given effect having regard to another 
C part, doctrine of purposive construction as a/so general • 
principles of construction of deed could be given effect to -
Interpretation of statutes. 
The testatrix inherited properties from her husband 
0 by Will and also had her own Stridhan properties. Testatrix 
had four daughters. She executed a Will on 23.8.1978 in 
favour of one of her daughters viz. KS. It is alleged that in 
1992, she revoked the will and executed another Will. She 
appointed KRP and the appellant-AK as joint executors 
and TN as Chartered Accountant to assist the executors 
E in administering and distributing the estate and executing 
the Will. The properties were in Part A and 8. Part A 
consisted of the properties bequeathed in testatrix's 
favour by her husband and Part 8 consisted of properties 
other than those specified in Part A. She bequeathed Part 
F A properties in favour of her daughters and Part 8 in favour 
of her grand children. The Will was executed in presence 
of notary. It was attested by the witnesses. Medical 
Certificates issued by the doctors were annexed thereto. 
The Will contained few appendices. It also contained 
G statements containing her investments in various shares 
within and outside the country. 
H 
KS filed application for grant of Letters of 
Administration with a copy of the Will dated 23.8.1978 and 
AK and KRP filed an application for grant of probate ir. 
\-
, 
... 
ANIL KAK v. KUMARI SHARADA RAJE & ORS. 
1011 
_,.., 
their capacity as executors appointed under the Will dated A 
4.11.1992. Single Judge of the High Court rejected the 
application for probate and/or letters of administration in 
respect of both the Wills. With regard to the Will dated 
4.11.1992, the court held that the execution was not proved 
since appendices were not signed by the attesting B 
~ 
witnesses; the Will remained in the custody of AK for a 
·j. 
long time; AK did not examine himself as a witness; as an 
unequal division of the properties described in Part B of 
the Will effected, there existed suspicious circumstances; 
and AK took part in preparation of the Will. The Division c 
Bench dismissed the Letter Patent Appeals as not 
m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.