JOSEPH ANTONY LAZARUS (DEAD) BY LRS. versus A.J. FRANCIS

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 03-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
JOSEPH ANTONY LAZARUS (DEAD) BY LRS. 
V. 
A.J. FRANCIS 
APRIL 3, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Will-Genuineness of-Testatrix had two daughters and/our sons-Will 
purported to have been executed by testatrix in favour of one son bequeathing 
A 
B 
suit property-Application for grant of probate filed before Court by the son C 
without disclosing the names of others who had interest in the suit property-
Probate was granted but later revoked on the application for revocation filed 
by one of the daughters-Daughter contending that her husband had paid the 
instalments for purchase of the suit property; that the Will was not executed 
by the testatrix voluntarily as she was not physically and mentally fit before 
her death; and that the son had exercised coercion and undue influence on the D 
testatrix for execution of the Will in his favour-Trial Court held in favour of 
the son-High Court held in favour of the daughter-Correctness of-Held, 
on facts, signatures in the Will are not corresponding to the actual signature 
of the testatrix-Advocate, who drafted the- Will at the instance of the testatrix 
and the Sub-Registrar before whom the Will was registered, was not examined- E 
Besides there are other suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution 
and registration of the Will-Hence, there is doubt regarding the genuineness 
of the Will and execution of the same by the testatrix of her own free volition. 
One S died leaving 'behind her two daughters and four sons. S was 
purported to have executed a Will in the presence of witnesses bequeathing · F 
suit house property in favour of appellant, who is one of the sons. The Will 
was registered after one year of the execution of the Will. The appellant filed 
an application for grant- of probate of the Will before High Court without 
disclosing the names of other persons having an interest in the suit property 
of the deceased. The probate was granted in favour of the appellant. 
Respondent, who is one of the daughters, filed an application in the probate G 
proceedings seeking revocation of the probate granted to the appellant since 
it has been obtained without making her a party to the proceedings. The Single 
Judge revoked the probate and re-numbered the application to consider 
whether the Will said to have been executed by the testatrix was valid and 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J 3 S.C.R. 
A genuine or not and whether the Will had been vitiated by coercion and undue 
influence. 
The respondent contended that the suit property was allotted by the 
State on the application made by her husband; that since the State insisted 
that only residents of the city were eligible to be allotted house sites, she and 
B her husband decided to transfer the allotment to her mother on the 
understanding that she would be permitted to stay and enjoy the property 
till her life time and after her death, it would be handed back to her husband; 
that her husband paid all the instalments to the State for the suit property; 
that she stayed with her husband in a rented accommodation since the suit 
C property was not sufficient to accommodate all the members of the family; 
that after the death of her mother, the appellant refused to vacate the suit 
property for occupation of the respondent; that she filed a suit before trial 
court against the appellant for possession, which is pending; that the alleged 
Will could not have been executed by her mother voluntarily since she was 
not physically and mentally fit for almost thirteen years before her death; 
D and that if the Will had been executed by her, it could only have been done 
under duress and coercion. 
E 
The appellant contended before the High Court that his brother and 
himself together paid the instalments of the suit property to the State and 
looked after their mother till her death; that his mother executed the Will in 
favour of his brother and himself in recognition of the said fact which was 
also stated in the Will. 
Single Judge of the High Court decided the suit in favour of the 
appellant holding that there was no suspicious circumstances which were 
F sufficient in itself to indicate that the Will was not genuine; that the appellant 
was able to prove the proper execution of the Will; that the testatrix was 
sufficiently in possession of her mental faculties to execute the Will; that there 
was no evidence to indicate that the testatrix was under the control of the 
appellant or that sh

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