JASWANT KAUR versus AMRIT KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 25-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
925 
JASWANT KAUR 
v. 
AMRIT KAUR & ORS. 
October 25, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GosWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1925-.S'ec. 63 legal will--Genuineness of-Suspicious 
circumsta~es-Burden of proof-Degree uf proof. 
S. Gobinder Singb Sibia was possessed of a large estate valued at about 
Rs. 15 lacs Ii. the time of his death in the year 1954. He had awo wives Guiab 
Kaur and Dalip Kaur. Dalip Kaur pre-deceased him leaving a son and a 
grandson named Surjit. 
After the death of S. Gobinder Singh, Guiab Kaur 
filed a suit for maintenance, claiming alternatively a one-half share in the estate 
left by her husband. Surjit contested the said suit. After the institution of the 
suit, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force on June 17, 1956 upon 
the plaintiff giving up her claim for maintenance and restricting her suit to a 
half share in her husband's estate, the defendant made an application for amend-
ing his written statement and pleaded that S. Gobinder Singh had executed a 
will in the year 1945 bequeathing practically the entire estate in his favour and 
leaving a small life interest in favour of the plaintiff. The amendment applica-
tion was filed in March, 1958, after the plaintiff's evidence was over. 
The 
Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and held that the plaintiff was entitled 
to a half share in the estate left by Gobinder Singh and that the defendant had 
failed to lll'OVe the will. In an appeal filed by the defendant the High Court set 
aside the Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The 
High Court held that will was duly established . 
I. Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (a) In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in: suspicion, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
its proof ceases to be a simple /is between the plaintiff and the 
defendant. 
What generally is an adversary proceeding becomes in 
E 
such cases a matter of the court's conscience. The presence of sus-
picious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and, therefore, 
in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the 
will excite the suspicion of the court the propounder must remove all 
legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the 
! 
last will of the testator. (929 C-F, 930 C-D] 
(b) A will has to be proved like any other document by applying the 
F 
usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. [929 Fl 
( c) Since section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested 
it cannot be used as an evidence until at least one of the attesting 
witnesses is e1'filnined, if available. [929 GJ 
( d) Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testa-
tor and, therefore, the maker of the will is never available 
for 
deposing as to the circumstances in which the will was executed. 
That circumstance introduces a certain amount of solemnity in proof 
of testamentary instruments. [929 H, 930 Al 
R. Venkatacha/a Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajd,mma & Others [1959] Supp. 1 
S.C.R. 426, followed. 
2. The testator was a man of property and occupied a· high Position in 
society. A genuine will of such a person is not likely to suffer from the loop-
holes and infirmities which may beset llU' humbler testamentary instrument. 
[931 D, H, 932 Al 
3. The following circumstances thJ·ow a cloud of suspicion on the making 
of the will by Gobinder Singh : 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
(i) The will is alleged to have been made in 1945 but it did not see 
the .light of the day till 1957. It is unacceptable that a document by 
whic~ property worth lacs of rupees was disposed of could have 
remamed a closely guarded secret from intimate friends and relatives 
and from the sole legatee himself for over 2! years after the testa-
tor's death. (932 A-BJ 
(ii) The testator had l.eft b.ehind him a large. p~·opert~ and along with it 
large ~ount of httgatJon which makes it 1mposs1ble to believe that 
upon h1~ death no one bothered to go through his paper~. ·nic 
explanahon. of tpe defendant that he stumbled upon the will 
by 
chance while gomg through some papers of his grandfather 
is 
patently lame and unacceptable. [932 B-D] 
• 
(iii) The defendant came out with the theory o[ will after the Hindu 
Succession Act of 1956 came into force as a result of which the 
plaintiff would become an absolute owner of the prope~y that would 
fall to her share as the heir of her husband. ,(932 G-H, 933 A-B] 
(iv) The will was typed

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