SWARNALATHA & ORS. versus KALAVATHY & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 30-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
847
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 847
847
SWARNALATHA & ORS.
v.
KALAVATHY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 2022)
MARCH 30, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Will – Suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the
Will – Plea of – Tenability – Two separate Wills left behind by a
married couple (testators) – Both spouses executed a Will each –
Appellants are the successors-in-interest of the pre-deceased elder
/ first son of the testators – Respondent no.1 and.2 are respectively
the daughter and other / second son of the testators – District Court
rejected allegations of respondents about suspicious circumstances
surrounding the Wills and granted probate of both the Wills in favour
of the appellants – High Court reversed judgment of District Probate
Court citing various suspicious circumstances including that there
was total exclusion of Respondent no.1-daughter from the bequests
– On appeal, held: The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from
the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are
suspicious circumstances – In the matter of appreciating the
genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court
to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and
equitable to all of his children – Court does not apply Art. 14 of the
Constitution to dispositions under a Will – While reversing the
judgment of District Probate Court, the High Court recorded certain
suspicious circumstances, but each such circumstance, neither
individually nor collectively creates a suspicion – High Court
completely overlooked all the above aspects and proceeded to invent
reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line
of reasoning – Judgment of the District Court, granting probate of
both the Wills, restored – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 14.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. While reversing the Judgment of the Probate
Court, the High Court recorded certain suspicious circumstances,
but each such circumstance, neither individually nor collectively
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
creates a suspicion. The High Court completely overlooked all
the above aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a
conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning.
[Paras 16, 17 and 18][852-F; 854-C, F]
2. Once it is found that the father not only attested the
mother’s Will (Exhibit P-1) and once it is found that in his own
Will (Exhibit P-2), which is a registered Will, the father had made
a mention about the mother’s Will, all the suspicious
circumstances sought to be projected would automatically fall to
the ground. [Para 20][854-H; 855-A]
3. When it was not even the case of the respondents that
the testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the
High Court found fault with the appellants for not disclosing the
nature of the ailments suffered by them. The exclusion of one of
the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground
to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. The reasons
given in Exhibit P-1 are more than convincing to show that the
exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way. If
Exhibit P-1 (Will) had been fabricated on blank papers containing
the signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion
for the father to make a mention in his own Will (Exhibit
P-2) about the execution of the Will by the mother. [Para 21]
[855-A-C]
4. It is not known how the High Court held the delay on the
part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a
suspicious circumstance. Exhibit P-1 was executed on 30.01.1995
and the testatrix died on 14.08.1995. The father was alive till
08.08.2000. Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants
to seek probate of the said Will. After the death of Mannar
Reddiar [testator-father] on 08.08.2000, the appellants obviously
had no support, due to the fact that the first son of the testators
V.M. Chandrasekaran (husband of appellant No.1 and father of
appellant Nos.2 and 3) had pre-deceased the father Mannar
Reddiar, he having died in October-1999. The occasion for the
appellants to seek probate of the Will arose only when the
respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005.
Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part of the appellants
in seeking probate. [Paras 22, 23][855-C-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
5. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by
reading too much into the lack of knowledge on 

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