LexSMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. versus MR. MAHAVEER PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 10 S.C.R. 266 SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER PRASAD (Civil Appeal Nos.1630-31 of 2010) 02JULY,2015 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND AMIT AVA ROY, JJ.] Will- Validity of-Application u/s. 372 of Succession c Act, 1925 by adopted son of testator on the strength of Will dated 15.11.1978 - Validity of the Will challenged - Trial Court rejected the application holding the Will to be invalid - Single as well as Division Bench of High Court, reversed the order of trial court, and directed issuance of Succession D Certificate - On appeal, held: Two witnesses have satisfactorily proved the execution of the Will and the attestation thereof by tWo witnesses- Signature of the testator has been endorsed by two handwriting experts vyhich was corroborated by forensic report- Widow and daughter of the E Testator supported the case of the applicant- Thus there is no vitiating or suspicious circumstance invalidating the bequest- Succession Act, 1925 - s. 372. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Undisputedly, the Respondent No. 1 had been adopted by the testator in the year 1962 and had become a part of the family thereby. As the Will dated 15.11.1978, Exh. 2 would reveal, it was preceded by two G Wills dated 01.11.1962 and 23.12.1974 which witnessed different patterns of disposition of the properties mentioned therein. The Will dated 15.11.1978, as the recital thereof would reveal, superseded the earlier Wills dated 01.11.1962 and 23.12.1974. On a perusal of the H evidence of AW 3 and AW 4 it is apparent that these two 266 SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER 267 PRASAD witnesses have been able to satisfac;:torily prove the A execution of the Will dated 15.11.1978 and the attestation thereof by two witnesses, as required in law. The signature of the testator on these documents has been endorsed by two handwriting experts. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also corroborates this B finding. The recitals of the Will, Exh·.2, also provide sufficient justification for the bequest in favour of Respondent No. 1. The fact that wife and daughter of the testator had, at all relevant time, supported Respondent No. 1 in his initiatives· to obtain the C succession certificate is also a formidable factor in his favour as well as in endorsement of the genuineness of the Will, 15.11.1978. Though, the Will dated 23.12.1974 had been registered, no steps had been taken by the D non-applicants to obtain the probate thereof. [Paras 13 and 14) [274.-E-G; 275-E-H; 276-A] 2. In the factual background, the dispensation made by the testator in favour of Respondent No. 1 cannot be repudiated to be in defiance of logic or unfair, E vis-a-vis the other members of the family. There is no vitiating or suspicious circumstance invalidating the bequest. [Para 14) [276-0) CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. F 1630-1631 of2010 · From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2003 in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 414 of 1997 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. G Madhurima Tatia for the Appellants. YashankAdhyeru, Aruna Gapta, Sumita Hazarika for the Respondent. H 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 10 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The present appeals, mount an assailment against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2003 rendered by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature B for Rajasthan, allowing SB Civil Misc.Appeal No. 414/19.97, preferred before it, by the Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad against the verdict of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 24.5.1997, in Original Civil Case No. 32/1992, instituted by him under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for C issuance of succession certificate in his favour, as well as the judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed in Division Bench Civil Special Appeal No.187 /2003 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court sustaining the decision dated 25.09.2003 above referred to. Aggrieved on both the counts, D the non-applicants in the succession certificate proceedings are in appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts in pare minimum as offered by the rival E pleadings, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent No.1, Velchand had_ two sons, Amba Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad was the son of Amba Lal who died in 1956. The other siblings of Respondent No. 1 were Sh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.