LexLEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS. versus KAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 697 LEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS. V. KAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9282 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] A B Will - Legality and validity of - Execution of two Wills by mother in favour of her spinster daughter and grand daughter, excluding her sons - No difference in the two Wills - Probate C proceedings by daughter - Dismissed by t~e trial court holding that the execution of Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances - Said order set aside by High Court - On appeal, helr:J: Will indicates clear 1a11.guage and its unambiguous purport and effect - Mind of the testator for D '-exclusion of the sons apparent - Participation of the beneficiary in the execution and registration of the Will and getting the attestation done does not warrant any adverse conclusion - Contents of both ·the Will identical - Attribution of lack of knowledge. of English to the testator would not effect E the Will since the contents thereof can be understood to have been explained to the testator by the Sub Registrar - Also the non filing of the complaint about the loss of the original Will would not invalidate the Will - Thus, order passed by the High Court upheld - Succession Act, 1925. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1 The judicial verdict, in the last resort, will be on the basis of a consideration of all the unusual features appearing in the Will and suspicious G circumstances put together and not on the impact of any single feature that may be found in a Will or a singular circumstance that may appear from the process leading to its execution or registration. [Para 10) [706-E-F] 697 H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.G.R. A 1.2 A close reading of the Will indicates its clear language, and its unambiguous purport and effect. The mind of the testator is crearly discernible and the reasons for exclusion of the sons is apparent from the Will itself. Insofar as the place of execution is concerned, the B inconsistency appearing in the verification filed alongwith the application for probate by PW-~ and the oral evidence of the said witness tendered in Court is capable of being understood in the light of the fact that the verification is in a standard form prescribed by the High Court on the C Original Side. Besides, the participation of the first respondent in the execution and registration of the Will as also her conduct in summoning her friend to be an attesting witness and in taking the testator to the office of the Sub Registrar does not warrant any adverse D conclusion. The Will dated 11.1.1982 is identical with the contents of the earlier Will dated 28.12.1981. No active participation has been attributed to the first respondent as regards the execution and registration of the Will dated 28.12.1981. [Para 11] [706-F-G; 707-A-D] • E: 1.3 The lack of knowledge of English even if can be attributed to the testator would not fundamentally alter the situation inasmuch as before registration of the Will the contents thereof can be understood to have been explained to the testator or ascertained from her by the F Sub Registrar. The non-production of the original Will and reliance.on the certified copy thereof is a circumstance which has been reasonably explained by the first respondent (plaintiff). The stand of the plaintiff that the I original Will was lost while in the custody of her mother G and her knowledge of such loss on the day of her mother's death cannot be disbelieved merely because no report in this regard was lodged before the police. [Para 12] [707 -E-H] H LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 699 COCHARAN 1.4 All the unusual and allegedly suspicious A circumstances being capable of being understood in the manner indicated, no fault can be found with the conclusions reached by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the trial court. [Para 13] [708-A-B] H. Venkatacbala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and B Ors. 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426; Bharpur Singh and Ors. Vs. Shamsher Singh 2009(3) SCC 687; Rani Pnmima Debi and Anr. Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Anr. (1962) 3 SCR 195; Apoline D'souza Vs. John D'souza 2007 (7) SCC 225; Pentakota · Satyanarayana and Ors. Vs. Pentakota C Seetharatnam and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 67; Mahesh Kumar (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. 2012 (4) SCC 387; Ved Mitra Verma Vs. Dharam Deo Verma 2014 (9) SCALE- 219 - referred to. Case Law Referen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.