LexRAMCHANDRA RAMBUX versus CHAMPABAI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 Ftbruary 17. 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAMCHANDRA RAMBUX v. CHAMPABAI AND OTIIERS (K. SusBA RAo AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR JJ.) Will-G-enuineness-Credibility of wit11esses-..f)urrounding circumsta~ ces and probabilities, if court can look into--Re11zoval of tu.vpiciom circumstances, if propounder has to satisfy the court. The appellant filed a suit claiming the property of one R which was in possession of R's widow on the allegation that R had executed a will bequeathing almost his entire property to the appellant and practically excluding his widow and daughters. The ground on which the widow and the daughters were excluded is said to be the strained relations which had developed between R and his wife. The widow denied the execution of the alleged will ana challenged the genuineness. The Trial Court holding that the will was genuine decreed the suiL On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit. holding that the will was not genuine. The finding of the High Court was based on the evidence and the attending circumstances appearing in the case. On appeal to this Court by a certificate granted: Held: (i) In order to judge the credibility of the witness, the Court is not confined only to the way in which the witnesses have tdeposed or to the demeanour of the witnesses, but it is open to it to look into the surrounding circumstances as well as the probabilities, so that it may be able to form a correct idea of the trustworthiness of the witnesses. This issue cannot be determined by considering the evidence adduced in the Court separately from the surrounding circumstances brought out in the evidence, or V.'hich appear from the nature and the contents of the do.:ument itself. (ii) It is necessary for the propounder to satisfy the court about the genuineness of the will by removing all suspjcions which naturally flow from the various circumstances. Surat Kumar Bibi v. Sakti Chand, (1928). L.R. 56 f.A. 62, Kri.rhto Gopal v. Baidyanath, A.I.R. 1939 Cal. 87, Chotey Narain Singh \'. Mt. Ratan Kaer, (1894) L.R. 22 I.A. 12, Ii. Venkachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thaimmajam1na, [1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 426, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, C.A. No. 295 of 1960. dt. Sept. 13, 1963 (Non·reportable and Tyrell v. Painton, (1894) P. 151, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 758 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 14, 15, of the former Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 516 of 1957 from original Decree. 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 815 J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellant. Girish Chandra and Sardar Bahadur, for respondents Nos. 1, 2(i) to 2(iv), 3 and 4. February 17, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:- MUDHOLKAR, J.-The question which arises for con- sideration in this appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay is whether a will alleged to have been executed by one Ramdhan on May 23, 1947 is genuine or is a fabrication. By this will. Ramdhan is alleged to have bequeathed almost his entire property consisting of 16 fields assessed to land revenue at Rs. 425 /- per annum. five hou•es, a shop and movables consisting of 800 tolas of gold, I.COO tolas of silver, Rs. 50,000/- cash and Rs. 15,000/- due trom debtors as well as cattle, agricultural implements, utensils. etc., to the appellant, and practically excluded his widow. Sitabai and his three married daughters. The appellant is the grandson of one of the three predeceased uncles of Ramdhan, and the ground on which the widow and the daughters were practically excluded by Ramdhan is said to be the strained relations which developed between Ramdhan and his wife during his last days. Ramdhan died on October 31. 1948. and Sitabai, who was all along living with him, came into possession of Ram- dhan 's property. Admittedly, the appellant did not trv to disturb her possession. According to him, he allowed Sita- bai to remain in possession on his behalf, and that for some time she was managing the estate in a satisfactory way. Later on, however, she, in utter disregard of the appellant's interests, began to give away some portions of the property to her daughters and strangers, even though she knew that the property had been bequeathed to him by Ramdhan. and that she was entitled to receive only a maintenance of Rs. 40 /- per month under the will of Ramdhan. It may be mentioned that Ramdha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.