LexS.R. SRINAVASA AND ORS. versus S. PADMAVATHAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 981 S.R. SRINAVASA AND ORS. v. S. PADMAVATHAMMA (Civil Appeal No. 4623 of 2005) APRIL 22, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Will: A B Execution of Will and its genuineness - Burden to prove c - HE1ld: The initial burden is on the propounder to remove all the reasonable doubts - Presence of suspicious circumstances make initial burden heavier - Will in respect of suit property in favour of one of the daughter - No reason given as to why the other legal heirs were excluded from 0 inheritance - None of the attesting witnesses examined - No reason given as to why the Will was presented before the Sub- Registrar on two separate occasion for registration - Non- ex amination of Sub-Registrar - Active participation of sole beneficiary in writing and registering the Will - Cumulative E effect of all the circumstances would create suspicion about genuineness of Will - Registration by itself not sufficient to remove suspicion - Such suspicion cannot be removed by mere assertion of propounder that the Will bore signature of testator or that the testator was in sound and disposing state F of mind at the time of making Will - Thus, Will not proved to be genuine - Evidence Act, 1882 - ss. 63, 68 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s.15(2)(a). Attesting witness - Scribe of a Will - Held: Does not become attesting witness - It is essential that the witness G should put his signature animo attestandi, that is for the purpose of attesting that he saw executant sign - If a person puts his signature _on the document to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer then he is not signing 981 H 982 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 4 S.C.R. A in the capacity of an attesting witness - Evidence Act, 1882 - ss. 63, 68 - Witness. The suit property devolved upon 'P' who was the mother of plaintiff and defendant 4 after death of their 8 father. One of the sisters of plaintiff, 'I' was staying with the mother and looking after mother till she died .. 'I' continued to be in possession of suit property. When 'I' died, her cremation was performed by her cousin, the defendant 1. Thereafter, Defendant 1 remained in C possession of suit property and inducted defendant 2 and 3 as tenant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she and defendant 4 were the absolute owner of the suit property. The defence of defendant 1 was that on 18.6.197 4, the D mother of plaintiff had executed Will in favour of 'I', and since there was no intestate succession, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant 4 could succeed to the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs did not seriously dispute the execution of E Will by 'P' in favour of 'I' and in fact admitted the execution of the Will in a subsequent suit being O.S. no. 233 of 1998 which was filed by the appellants as the legal heirs of the plaintiff. The first appellate court reversed the judgment of trial court. On appeal, High Court restored the F judgment of trial Court. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 was a rank outsider. He was not a lineal descendant of G 'P'. He was son of P's sister. The property would be inherited by the appellants under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act if the Will dated 18.6.1974 was held not to be genuine. The basic aim of Section 15(2) is to ensure that inherited property of an issueless female H S.R. SRINAVASA AND ORS. v. S. 983 PADMAVATHAMMA Hindu dying intestate goes back to the source. It was A enacted to prevent inherited property falling into the hands of strangers. This is also evident from the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament. [Paras 18, 19, 21] [997-F; 998-D-E; 999-D- E] B State of Punjab v. Ba/want Singh 1992 Supp (3) SCC 108; V. Dandapani Chettiar v. Balasubramanian Chettiar (2003) 6 sec 633, relied on. Jayanti/al Mansukh/al and another v. Mehta Chhana/a/ C Amba/al AIR 1968 Gujarat 212; Palanivelayutham Pillai and others v. Ramachandran and others (2000) 6 SCC 151; Somnath Berman v. Dr SP. Raju and another AIR 1970 SC 846; Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others AIR 1977 SC 7 4, referred to. D 1.2. By virtue of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, the appellants would inherit the property in dispute. This right was sought to be defeated by defendant No.1 on the basis of the Will d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.