GORANTLA THATAIAH versus THOTAKURA VENKATA SUBBAIAH & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 19-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Judgment (excerpt)

-
473 
A 
GORANTLA THATAIAH 
v. 
THOTAKURA VENKATA SUBBAJAH & ORS. 
March 19, 1968 
B 
[1. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, 1J.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Will-Propounder taking prominent part in ~xecutlon of and receiving 
benefif under-Principles regarding scrutiny of evidence of execution .and· 
sound disposing state of mind of testator. 
One V lost his father when he was only 10 years old and thereafter 
lived al<!ng with his mother; i• the hous., of the first defendant who was 
his maternal uncle. 
The first defendant had considerable influence over 
V as he was slow witted and below the average level of intelligence and 
understanding. V died when he was 24 years old. A few days before 
his death he executed a will by which he bequeathed his entire property 
to the first defendant absolutely with a direction that his mother should be 
maintained, and that, even if his mother lived separately from the first 
defendant, she was to have only a life. interest in certain items which were 
also to be taken absolutely by the first defendant after her death. At the 
time of the execution of the will V was physically in a weak condition. 
The first defendant took a prominent part in summonin~ the attesting 
witnesses and the scribe and in procuring writing materials for the exe-
cution Of the will. Evidence was given on behalf the first defendant tliat 
though· V was delirious on Ibo day previous to the execution of the will 
and also subsequent to that date, V was ·in a pormal condition on the date> 
of the execution of the will. 
On ·the question of the validity of ihe will, 
HELD : The will was not executed in a sound disposing state of mind· 
and was therefore not legally valid. (480 A-BJ 
In a case in which a will is prepared. under circum'Stano-..s which raise 
the suspicion of the court that it does not express the mind of the .testatOr 
it is for those who propound the will -to remove that suspicion. What are 
suspicious circumstances mint be judged on the facts and circumstances 
of each particular case. If, however, the propounder takes a prominent 
part in the execution of the wjll which eonfcrs substantial benefits on him 
that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will 
and in appreciating the evidence in such a case the coun should prooeed 
in a vigilant and cautious manner. (477 H; 478 A-BJ 
Ba"Y v. But/in, (1838) 2 Moo. P.C. 480, 482, Fulton v. Andrew, 
(187S) L.R. 7 H.L. 448, Ty"ell v. Painton, (1894) P. 151, 157, 159 and 
Surat Kumari Bibi v. Sakhi Chand & Ors., 56 I.A. 62, applied. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
43'1 
of 1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 22, J 963 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 554 of 1959. 
ff 
H. R. Gokhale and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant. 
D. Narsa Raju, S. T. Desai, A. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangan 
for the respondents. 
1
t 
.474 
$UPlll!MB OOtlaT UPOl.TS 
(1968) 3 S.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate on be-
.half of the plaintiff from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra 
.Pradesh in Appeal Suit No. 554 of 1959 dated August 22, 1963. 
A 
One Gorantla Tathiah, as the sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 2 
of 1957 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla for pos-
B 
session of certain properties which had been left by Gorantla 
Veeriah when he died issueless on June 24, 1939. Originall)I. 
there were ten defendants in the suit. Defendant no. 1 is the 
maternal uncle of V eeriah and Defendant no. 2 and Defendant 
.no. 3 arc the sons of Defendant no. 1. Defendants nos. 4 to 8 
·were the alienees froin Defendant no. l's family. Defendants nos. 
7, 9 and 10 did not contest the suit. Defendant no. 8 died in the 
course of the suit and his legal representatives were added as De· 
fendants 11 to 14. Defendants l to 3 contested the suit on the 
,ground that Defendant no. 1 became entitled to the properties of 
Veeriah under the will, Ex. B-4 dated June 17, 1939 which 
Veeriah executed in his favour. It was contended in the alternative 
1hat at the time when the reversion opened on the death of 
Veeriah's mother, Rattamma on October l, 1956, Defendant no. 
1 was the nearest heir and not the plaintiff, under the Hi:ld'.: Suc-
cession Act (XXX of 1956) which had come into force Oil Octo-
ber 17, 1956. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Bapatla held 
that the will was tru~ and genuine but it was not legally valid as 
it was executed by V 

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