SMT. GURO versus ATMA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 05-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. GURO 
v. 
ATMA SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 5, 1992 
B 
[M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1924-Section 63-Will-Mode of proving-Re-
quirements prescribed to be fulfilled-Suspicious circumstances-Genuineness 
of will questionetl--Onus on propounder to explain to court's satisfac-
C tion-Onus-Nature of. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal-Will-Mode of prov-
ing-Requirements-Genuineness of will questione~ty of propounder to 
explain the suspicious circumstances .. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Arttcte 136-Appeal-Will-Made of prov-
ing-Suspicious circumstances-High Court's failure to appreciat~// not 
proved to be gen~ine. 
Respondent No. l's grand father's brother had two sons, Ganga and 
Ranga and a daughter, Banti. Ranga and Banti died during the life time 
E 
of Ganga. The appellant was Banti's daughter. 
On 2.10.1968 Ganga executed the will in question bequeathing his 
one-third share in the property to respondent No. 1. 
On 10.10.1968 Ganga died. On his death proceedings regarding 
F 
mutation of the lands were initiated. Respondent No. 1. sought mutation 
in his favour on the basis of the will, whereas the appellant-as the nearest 
a 
· heir claimed mutation in her favour. 
The mutatio.. was sanctioned in favour of the appellant on the 
ground that the will was not genuine. 
. A suit for declaration was filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming the 
one-third share of demised Ganga on the basis of the will. 
The defendant-appellant questioned the genuineness of the will and 
the plaintiff-respondent disputed that the appellant was not the daughter 
H of the sister of the testator. 
30 
_, 
SMT. GURO v. ATMA SINGH 
.31 
The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 A 
_.,}.. 
holding that the will was genuine and the appellant was the daughter of 
the sister of the testator, Ganga. 
} 
The appeal filed against the decree was allowed. The appellate court 
held that the W111 was not a genuine document executed by Ganga in as 
much as there were certain features which threw suspicion with regard to B 
its valid execution. 
The second appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was al-
lowed by .the High Court, which restored the judgment of the trial court 
on the view that the will was executed validly. 
C 
This appeal by special leave was filed by the aggrieved defendant 
against.the judgment of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the defendant, this Court, 
HELD i 1.01. The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ D 
from that of proving any other document except as to the special require- . 
dient prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession 
Act. [34F] 
1.02. The onus of proving the will is on the circumstances surround-
E 
ing the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature 
of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. [34G] 
1.03. Where, there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be 
on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before 
the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may F 
be a shaky signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of 
property or the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making 
of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of 
)._ 
suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the 
propounder must remove all legitimates suspicion before the document G 
can be accepted as the last will of the testator. [34H, 35A] 
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors., [1959] 
Supp.1 SCR 426; Rani Pumima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev., 
~-
[1962] 3 SCR 195 and Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur & Ors., (1977] 1 SCR 
925, followed. 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992} 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2.01 The High Court has failed to attach sufficient importance to the 
i.__ 
....
various suspicious features relating to execution of the will that were 
pointed out by the appellate court. The High Court has not even noticed 
the fact that the testator had died .within eight days of the execution of the 
will and there is a recital in the will that the testator had been ill for a long 
B time and was seriously ill at the time of execution of the will. In view of the 
said recital, it \vas necessary for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 to adduce 
satisfactory evidence with regard to the nature of the illness of the testator 
~ 
and about his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.