LexRUR SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. versus BACHAN KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 106 A RUR SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v \<: BACHAN KAUR Civil Appeal No. 941 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 [S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Succession Act, 1925 : s. 63(c) - Will - Execution of- Proof of- Held Execution -1-- c of Will is required to be proved in terms of provisions of s. 63 (c) ands. 68 of Evidence Act - Villager bequeathing agricul- tural lands in favour of sons excluding daughter - Testator in sound disposing mind - Will scribed by Sarpanch and attested by ten witnesses - Nine were independent witnesses and one D was the beneficiary - Execution and attestation concluded in one go - Order of mutation passed immediately after execu- .... tion of Will and same not challenged - Thus, Will was genu- ine and the statutory requirements were complied with - One of the attesting witness being beneficiary, would not mean that E he took active part in its execution - Concurrent findings by court below upheld- Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 68. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the High Court was justified in inter- ,.. F fering with the concurrent findings of fact by courts be- low that the Will executed by the testator-villager was genuine and free from suspicious circumstances. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: Execution of a Will is required to be proved in terms of the provisions of s. 63(c) of the Succession Act, ,. 1925 and s. 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 14] [114-G, H] 2.1 High Court while exercising its jurisdiction un- der s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 exercises H 106 ( RUR SINGH (0) TH. LRS. & ORS. V. 107 BACHAN KAUR ,.. a limited jurisdiction. It may interfere with a finding of fact A ~ arrived at by the trial court and/ or the first appellate court ¥ only in the event, a substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The High Court framed only one sub- \ stantial question of law, viz., whether the Will had been duly proved and/ or was otherwise genuine. It is essen- 8 tially a question of fact. The High Court essentially en- tered into the arena of appreciation of evidence. It inter- =( fered with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the -t courts below. [Paras 10, 11, 14] [ 112-H; 113-A, B; 114-G] 2.2 High Court unfortunately even did not choose to c assign any reason in support of its conclusion that the statutory requirements contained in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act had not been complied with. The oral evi- dence adduced on behalf of the parties had not been dis- cussed far less analysed. How and in what manner the D ~ statutory requirements had not been complied with was not stated. High Court omitted to notice that at least in' respect of the properties situate in one village the order of mutation was passed in the year 1970, i.e., immediately E after the execution of the Will. High Court furthermore failed to take into consideration that at least in regard to the said order of mutation, the respondent did not carry the matter to the appellate court or question the validity ~ thereof by filing a suit. [Paras 16 and 17] [ 118-A, 8, C, D] F 3.1 The Will was scribed in the house of the testator. From the deposition of the witnesses, the trial judge as also the first appellate court came to the conclusion that he was in a sound disposing mind. The Will wa.s scribed by the Sarpanch. As many as ten witnesses attested the G ~ Will; nine of them being independent witnesses. Execu- tion of the Will as also attestation thereof by the witnesses was concluded in one go. The testator and all the wit- nesses were present throughout the .said transaction. It H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S. C.R. A ;is in the said situation, the first appellate court arrived at a ·categorical finding of fact that the statutory requirements "' had been complied with as more than one witness had attested the execution of the Will not only in presence of ·the testator but also in presence of each other. [Para 15] B ["117.:.F, G, H] 3.2 The suit was filed in the year 1983. It was also not the case of the respondent that she had been getting share of the yields from the said agricultural properties. Only because one of the beneficiaries attested the Will, the +:-- C same would not mean that he had taken active part in it. In any event, the trial judge as also the first appellate court found sufficient explanation therefor hold
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.