MURTHY & ORS. versus C. SARADAMBAL & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 10-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 836
836
MURTHY & ORS.
v.
C. SARADAMBAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2010)
DECEMBER 10, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Will: Suspicious circumstances in execution of will – Bequest
made in the name of testator’s son to the exclusion of testator’s
daughters – Testator’s son lived for eleven years after the death of
their father – Petition seeking Letters of Administration filed fifteen
years after the death of the testator by wife of testator’s son –
Daughters of testator defendants sought for dismissal of the petition
on the ground that the will was fabricated – Held: It is highly
improbable that the only son of the testator who was a practicing
advocate and on whom the bequest of the house was made, was
unaware of the execution of the will by his father – It is unnatural
that the father would not have disclosed to his only son about the
bequest of the property and had also not taken his son’s assistance
in the drafting as well as execution of the will – The testator had
suffered a paralytic stroke which had affected his speech, mobility
of his right arm and right leg and he was bedridden for a period of
ten months prior to his death – Taking these circumstances into
consideration, a doubt is created as to whether the testator was in a
sound and disposing state of mind at the time of making of the
testament which was fifteen days prior to his death – The said
suspicion in the mind of the Court has not been removed by the
propounder of the will i.e. first plaintiff by producing any contra
medical evidence or the evidence of the doctor who was treating
the testator prior to his death – Testator had himself stated in the
alleged will that he was sick and getting weak even then he is stated
to have “written” the will himself which is not believable – s.63 of
the Succession Act, 1925 categorically states that the testator has
to sign on the will and the signature of the testator must be such
that it would “intend” thereby to give effect to the writing of a will
– Hence, the genuineness of the will must be proved by proving the
intention of the testator to make the testament and for that, all steps
which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
proved by placing concrete evidence before the Court – There is no
evidence as to whom the testator gave instructions to write the will
– The scribe was also not examined – In order to prove the execution
of the document such as a testament, at least one of the attesting
witnesses who had attested the same must be called to give evidence
for the purpose of proof of its execution – One attestor had died –
The second attestor, PW2 had given his evidence – PW2 deposed
that the will could not be registered as the testator was unwell and
in fact, he was bedridden – His deposition was rather fatal to the
case of the beneficiary of the Will – Trial Court had also not believed
the evidence of PW2 – Respondents-plaintiffs were not successful
in proving the validity of the will in accordance with law inasmuch
as the suspicious circumstances surrounding the very execution of
the will were not cleared by any cogent evidence, rather, the
genuineness of will remained in doubt – The alleged Will not being a
valid document in the eye of law, no Letters of Administration can be
granted to the respondents-plaintiffs – Succession Act, 1925 – s.63.
Judgment/Order: Reasoned order – Duty of Appellate court
while affirming, modifying or reversing the judgment of lower court
– Held: The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse, affirm or
modify the findings and the judgment of the Trial Court – However,
while reversing or modifying the judgment of a Trial Court, it is the
duty of the Appellate Court to reflect in its judgment, conscious
application of mind on the findings recorded supported by reasons,
on all issues dealt with, as well as the contentions put forth, and
pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court – No
doubt, when the Appellate Court affirms the judgment of a Trial
Court, the reasoning need not to be elaborate although re-
appreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of the judgment
of the Trial Court are necessary concomitants – But while reversing
a judgment of a Trial Court, the Appellate Court must be more
conscious of its duty in assigning the reasons for doing so – In the
instant case, High Court has dealt with the judgment of 

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