LexB. VENKATAMUNI versus C.J.YODHYA RAM SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B. VENKATAMUNI A V. C.J. A YODHYA RAM SINGH AND ORS. OCTOBER 19. 2006 ,, (S.B. SINHA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B Indian Succession Act, 1925-Section 63-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 67 and 68-Application for grant of probate of a Will-Application opposed ,., on the ground that the Will is a forged one-Trial Court held that the Will c could not have been executed by testator in view of presence of a number of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will-Single Judge of High Court, in appeal, confirmed the findings of the trial court- Division Bench, in letters Patent Appeal, reversed the findings of the lower courts holding that the sourrounding circumstances should be ignored on the ground that the execution of the Will has been proved under th Succession D Act-Correctness of-Held, on fac/s there are a number of suspicious circumstances glaring on the face of the record in execution of the Will, which cannot be ignored-Hence, Division Bench of the High Court is in error in proceeding on the premise that compliance of legal formalities as regards proof of the Will would sub-serve the purpose. E An unmarried lady A had been living with one J, a married person. Respondents 1 to 3 are the children of J through his legally wedded wife. The respondent filed an application for grant of probate before trial court ofa Will, which was purported to have been executed by A just three days before her death. Appellant, who is a legal heir of A, opposed to the prayer for grant of F probate in favour of the respondents. In view of the opposition, the trial court converted the application into a regular suit under section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appellant contended before the trial court that the Will was a forged one. The trial court dismissed the suit of the respondents holding that the Will could not have been executed by A in view of the presence ofa number of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the G - Will. An appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents was, however, allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the execution of the Will has been found to be proved under section 63 of the Act 787 H -· 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A and that the surrounding circumstances are not suspicious in nature. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court erred in ignoring a large number of surrounding suspicious circumstances in execution of the Will; and that the High Court erred in holding that once the ~, Will stands proved under section 63 of the Act, the suspicious circumstances B should be ignored. The respondents contended that once the execution of the Will has been found to be proved under section 63 of the Act, surrounding circumstances should be ignored. ·- c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. When a question comes up for consideration before a Court in regard to grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a copy of the - Will annexed thereto, it is trite that all circumstances should be taken into D consideration. The proof of execution of the Will in terms of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be a pre-requisite, but, to take the same in evidence, while arriving at a finding as to whether the Will has been duly executed or not, the Court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances. (792-A-C) E 1.2. In the event of suspicion in regard to the genuineness or otherwise, the Will must be proved to have been executed in accordance with law establishing that the same has been done in presence of at least two witnesses. Although, the Court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court F in this behalf should be followed. The issue necessarily involves due appreciation of evidence. [792-D, E) 1.3. The Division Bench of the High Court was entirely wrong in proceeding on the premise that compliance of legal formalities as regards proof of the Will would sub-serve the purpose and the suspicious G circumstances surrounding the execution thereof is not of much significance. The suspicious circumstances were glaring on the face of the records. They - could not have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.