MRS. JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTOR versus MISS VERA MARIE VAS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
MRS. JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTOR 
v. 
MISS VERA MARIE VAS AND ORS. 
APR! L 12, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
India Succession Act 1925-Ss.57, 61, 276--Holograph Will by testat1ix 
mother granting equal shares to her three daughters-Application for grant of 
Letters of Administration by one daughter resisted by the other two daughters 
and the father alleging will got by undue influence of the propounder on the 
teslatri:r-Tria/ Coiut holding undue influence not proved, will was genuine 
and plaintiff entitled to letters of administration-High Cowt reversing holding 
will shrouded in suspicious circiunstances-Held, High Court e1red; there was 
a strong presumption of regulanty of holograph wills and tnal court's finding 
was based on proper application of law and unassailable evidence. 
Practice and Procedure--Tnal Court on appreciation of evidence 
upholding legality of holograph will-High Court in appeal reversing 011 a 
re-appreciatio11 of evidence-Held, the approach of the High Court was 
palpably wrong and its conclusion vitiated; the onus was on the appel/a11t to 
E 
show that judgment under appeal was wrong and 11ot merely seek reapprecia-
tion of entire evidence-c-Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s. 96. 
The testatrix P by a will written in her hand on June 26, 1964 
bequeathed her property in equal shares to her three daughters • J, the 
Plaintiff and Defendants 3 and 4. No part of it went to either her husband 
F 
E or her son. The will was executed in the presence of two witnesses one 
of whom was PW 1. The will named E and DW 3 as executors. After P's 
death four years later, J was informed that DW 3 was unwilling to act as 
executor and that E proposed to contest the will. J then approached the 
District Court for grant of Letters of Administration. The validity of the 
G will was questioned by E and the other two daughters on the ground that 
it was tainted by undue influence of J on her mother P. 
At the trial it was admitted by Defendant 3 that the Will was in the 
handwTiting of P. The surviving attestor PW 1 stated that J was not present 
when the Will was esecuted and signed by P. and the attesters. There was 
H no cross examination of these witnesses regarding the due execution of the 
268 
-· 
JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTOR v. V.M. VAS 
269 
will. 
After a detailed examination of the evidence, the trial court held that 
the will was duly executed and attested and that P was in a sound state of 
mind \\'hen n1aking out the \\'ill. There was absolutely no material in the 
evidence of the defl"'.ndants \Vhich \\'ould etiect the genuineness of the \Viii. 
The facts showed that no undue influence as alleged could be exercised by 
J. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of J. 
The High Court allowed the appeal by the defendants 3 and 4 and 
held that the case of the alleged will was "shrouded in suspicion". The 
plaintiff .J appeal to this court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l; The finding of the trial court that the will was duly 
executed and attested and P was in a sound state of mind when executing 
A 
B 
c 
it was based on a proper application of the law and the evidence in the D 
case. The High Court wrongly reversed the trial court without giving effect 
to the strong presumption of rcgularit.)' and due execution and attestation 
of the holograph will. (287-A-B] 
Shashikumar Bane1jee v. Subodh Kumar Bane1jee, AIR (1964) SC 529, E 
followed. 
Ajit Chandra Majumdar v.Akhil Chandra Majumdm; AIR (1960) Cal. 
551, H. Venkatacha/a Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR (1959) SC 443, 
Rani Pumima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, AIR (1962) SC 567, 
Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai, AIR (1965) SC 354, Surendra Pal v. 
F 
Dr. M,,. Saraswati Arora, AIR (1974) SC 1999 and Smt Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. 
Am1it Kaur, AIR (1977) SC 74 , referred to. 
"The Law of Wills in India and Pakistan" by Mantha Ramamurthi, 
I 
p.81, referred to. 
2. The approach of the High Court was palpably wrong, which 
vitiated the conclusion reached by it. The High Court did not bear in mind 
I 
the salient principles of law that onus was on the appellant to show that 
the judgment appealed against was wrong and not merely seek a reassess· 
G 
ment of the entire evidence. (283-G; E-F] 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Smju Pe1shad Ramdeo Salm v. Jwa/eshwm; Pratap Naraini Singh, 
B 
c 
(1951) SC 120 and Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Nmyani Bai, AIR (1983) SC 
114, referred to. 
CIVI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.