RAMABAI PADMAKAR PATIL (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus RUKMINIBAI VISHNU VEKHANDE AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 14-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMABAI PADMAKAR PATIL (0) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RUKMINIBAI VISHNU VEKHANDE AND ORS. 
,... 
AUGUST 14, 2003 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Hindu Succession Act, 1957; Ss. 63 and 68: 
Testamentary disposition of the property by a widow/mother in favolfr c 
of her widowed daughter excluding other heirs-:Declaratory suit filed by the 
daughter-Court decreed the suit-Reversed by the first appellate Court-
Affirmed by the High Court-On appeal, Held, widowed daughter was living 
and looking after the testator for quite a long period-Execution of Will in 
her favour was most natural and probable conduct of a mother-Since a Will 
is executed to alter the mode of succession, reducing/depriving the share of 
heirs by the testator could not be made a ground to cast doubts on the D 
authenticity of the Will-Mere examination of one of the attesting witnesses 
.would prove the authenticity of the Will-Since no infirmity was found in the 
< 
testimony of the witnesses, Trial Court rightly held the Will as genuine-
However, since husband of the testator died after coming into force of the Act, 
she was entitled to/18th share in the estate-Hence the appellant, in addition E 
to her own share in the estate, would also get her mother's /18th share. 
Mother of the appellant inherited the property in dispute after her 
husband's death. She executed a registered Will and bequeathed the entire 
property to her widowed daughter, who was residing with her for quite a long F 
period. Other heirs/daughters started interfering with the possession of the 
suit property. Appellant filed a declaratory suit. Trial Court decreed the suit. . 
-
Aggrieved, other heirs filed an appeal which was allowed by the first appellate 
court and in the second appeal affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal 
Appellant contended that after the death of her father on 6.6.1956, her G 
mother became the exclusive owner of the estate property; that the first 
appellate Court and later the High Court erred in discarding the Will merely 
on the ground that the entire property was given to her by her mother/testator 
excluding other daughters/heirs; that the conduct of her mother in executing 
583 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A the Will bequeathing entire property in her favour was most probable and 
natural; and that the testator at the time of execution of the Will was in proper 
and fit mental state. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the mother of the 
appellant had not become exclusive owner of the property after the death of 
B her husband as succession would be governed by the Hindu Succession Act 
and thus appellant could not become owner of the entire property. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is nothing more shocking for the parents than the 
C death of a grown-up son or a young daughter becoming widow. It is most natural 
for the parents to have the greatest amount of sympathy for their widowed 
daughter. The respondents have led no evidence to show that the widowed 
daughter was getting anything for her sustenance from the family members 
of her late husband. She was thus entirely dependent upon her own parents. 
D Her father died on 6.6.1956 though according to the respondents he died 
sometime in the year 1957. At any rate at least from 1957 till death of the 
testator, she was being looked after by the appellant. The respondents, other 
daughters/heirs were residing at different places with their husbands. In such 
circumstances, the execution of the Will by the mother in favour of her 
widowed daughter, the appellant, who was living with her for over 20 years 
E and was looking after her, appears to be most natural and probable. 
(589-F, G, H; 590-A] 
1.2. The fact that the testator excluded all other daughters and gave 
the entire property to the appellant could not be a ground to cast any doubt 
regarding the authenticity of the Will in the facts and circumstances of the 
F case. It is not a case of exclusion of a son who may have been living with the 
parents or looking after them. It is a case of making provision for a widowed 
daughter who had been left a destitute on account of death of her husband at 
a very early age. If the parental property was to be divided equally amongst all 
the seven sisters, the share inherited by the appellant would have been quite 
G small making it difficult for her to survive. (590-B, C, DI 
1.3. A Will is executed to

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