LexRAM PIARI versus BHAGWANT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'y .. I RAM PIARI A v. BHAGWANT & ORS. MARCH 6, 1990 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETIT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] B Indian Succession Act, 1925: Testamentary succession-Will- Execution of-Genuineness-Mere production of scribe and attesting witnesses-Not sufficient-Suspicious circumstances to be ruled out- Conscience of Courts satisfaction of-Not only on execution-Also on authenticity. - Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Findings of fact- Erroneous application of principle of law-Miscarriage of justice-- Interference justified. c The appellant's father executed a Will, just oue day prior to his D death, bequeathing all his property iu favour of the sons of appellant's only sister. The testator was ill and lived with the beneficiaries six months prior to his death. Though the testator could sign, he pot his thumb impression on the Will. The disinherited daughter challenged the genuineness of the Will E on the ground that there were suspicious circumstances and the pro- pounder took active part in the execution of the Will. The Courts below right up to High Court held that the execution of the Will was beyond doubt. Aggrieved, she has preferred this appeal, by special leave. F Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1.1 Although freedom to bequeath one's own property amongst Hindus is absolute both in extent and person, including rank stranger, yet to have testamentary capacity or a disposable mind what G is requirea of propounder to establish is that the testator at the time of disposition knew and understood the property he was disposing and persons who were to be beneficiaries of his disposition. Prudence, how- ever, requires reason for denying benefit to those who too were entitled to bounty of testator as they had similar claims on him. Absence of it may not invalidate a Will but it shrouds ttie disposition with suspicion as H 813 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R. A it does not give any inkling to the mind of testator to enable the Court to judge if the disposition was voluntary act. Taking active interest by ~ propounder in execution bf Will raises another strong suspicion. Mere execution of Will by producing scribe or attesting witnesses or proving genuineness of testator's thumb impressions by themselves was not sufficient to establish validity of Will unless suspicious circumstances, B usual or special, are ruled out and the Court's conscience is satisfied not only on execution, but its authenticity. [8150-G] H. Venkatachalliah v. N. Themmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 and Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti & Ors., [1989] JT 439, relied on. 1.2 Happy marriage or financially well-settlement of appellant C could not add to genuineness of Will. The High Court in recording this finding, completely misdirected itself. More so, when no findng of dire circumstances of respondent to help out of which testator dis-inherited the other daughter, was recorded by any courts. [817A-B] D 2. Although this Court does not normally interfe~e with findings of fact recorded by courts below, but if the finding is recorded by erroneous application of principle of law, and is apt to result in miscar- riage of justice then this Court will be justified in interfering under Article 136. [817E-F] E Malkani v. Jamadar, AIR 1987 SC 767, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4499 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1986 of the Punjab F and Haryana High Courtin R.S.A. No. 974 of 1985 and Civil Misc. No. 1034-C of1985. Harbans Lal, Dr. Meera Agarwal, (N.P.) and R.C. Mishra for the Appellant. O S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda for the Respon- dents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J. Disinherited daughter, under a Will alleged to ti have been executed by her father one day before his death bequea: ( , r RAM PIARI v. BHAGWANT [SAHA!, J.l 815 thing all his property in favour of sons of her only sister, has assailed validity of orders of three courts below for failure to apply the rule that presumption of due execution of a pious and solemn document like Will stood rebutted due to existence of suspicious circumstances which the propounder could not rule out specially when he had taken active part in its execution. Soft comor for grand-children or likeability for a son or daughter or their issues is not uncommon to our society. Rather at times it becomes necessary either to provide for the lesser fortunate or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.