SURENDRA PAL & ORS. versus SARASWATI ARORA & ANR.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 09-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
• 
c 
D 
E 
, 
I I 
' \ 
J 
G 
/ 
\ 
i , 
I 
H 
68T 
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. 
v. 
SARASWATI ARORA & ANR. 
August 9, 1974 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIR!SWAMI, JJ.] 
Will-Bequest of entire property in favour of second wife to th_e exclusion· 
of children 
by the first wife and mother of testator-Presumption of undue" 
influence, if can be drawn . 
In April, 1959, the testator's wife died leaving behind four daughters and a son. 
Two of the daughters were married to persons in affluent circumstances. The son' 
was not living with his father at the time of his death and the other two daughters · 
were living with the brother. The relations between father on the one hand, and 
the son (the first appellant) and the two daughters on the other, were strained and· 
bitter, and in fact, there was positive hostility between them. The testatar even' 
apprehended danger to his life and he filed criminal complaints against the· son. 
Jn September, 1960, the testator advertised for a wife in a newspaper and the mother 
of the first respondent replied to it, on behalf of the 1st respondent, and:asked for 
particulars. But even before the testator and the 1st respondent met the testator· 
entered into an agreement with the 1st appellant, in October,, 1900, and in that 
agreement, he made provision for the maintenance and marriage of one: daughter 
and also provided for the maintenance and residence of the other daughter though 
no mention was made about her marriage. There was also no provision for the -
maintenance of the mother of the testator who was then living with him. After 
some correspondence between the testator and the relations of the first respondent 
the parties met and the testator and the first respondent were married on February 
7, 1961. On the very next day, the testator executed a will, by which he bequeathed 
his entire property to his wife, the 1st respondent. The will was attested by the brother· 
of the 1st respondent and a friend. The testator did not make any provision for the· 
f!Iaintenance of his mother and the marriage of his youngest daughter. The testator 
hved for three years thereafter and died in January, 1964. The 1st respondent filed 
an application for probate of the will and the 1st appellant contested the applica~ 
tion. The trial eourt granted probate to the 1st respondent and the judgment was 
confirmed in appeal by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HE~D : The .will was genuine and all the formalities that were required were 
fully satisfied as it was executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind 
and was duly attested as required by law. 
(1) The propounder of a will has to show that the will was signed by the testator,. 
that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind, that he under-
stood the !lature and effect of the dispositions, that he put his signature to the testa-
ment of hts free will and that he had signed it in the presence of two witnesses who 
attested i~ in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements. 
are estabhshed the onus resting on the propounder is discharged. If the caveator· 
alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion the onus is on him to prove the same~ 
If the caveator does not discharge this burden probate of the will must necessarily 
he granted if it is established that the testator had full testamentary capacity and had, 
in fact, executed it validly with a free will and mind. A man may act foolishly 
and even heartlessly but if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the 
Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition. 
There may however l» 
cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances 
such as where the signature is doubtful, the testator is of feeble mind or is over-
awed by powe~ul minds interested in getting his property or where, in the light of· 
the relevant circumstances, the dispositions appear to be unnatural, improbable 
and u_nfair; or; where there are other reasons for doubting that the dispositions in 
the will were not the result of the testator's free will and mind. In all such cases 
the suspicious circumstances must be reviewed and satisfactorily explained by the 
propounder before the will is accepted as genuine. Again, in cases where the pro-
po\Jnder has himself taken a prominent part in the execution of the will which. 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 1 S.C.R. 
confers on him

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.