V. PRABHAKARA versus BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 07-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377
V. PRABHAKARA
v.
BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1376-1377 of 2010)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Will – Indian Succession Act – s.63 – Evidence Act – s.68 –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.96 – Suit for declaration and
possession of suit property – Appellant claimed title over the property
on the basis of registered Will (Ext.P4) executed by the owner –
Respondents admitted execution of Ext.P4, however sought dismissal
of suit in view of a subsequent unregistered Will (Ext.D1), allegedly
executed by the owner in favour of respondent no.2 (minor son of
respondent no.1-erstwhile brother-in-law of the appellant) – Suit
decreed by trial court – First Appellate Court dismissed the suit –
Review, dismissed – On appeal, held: A testamentary court is not a
court of suspicion, but that of conscience – There was no room for
suspicion over the Will when the testatrix was accompanied by the
sister of the appellant and the Will was attested by his brother and
when both did not raise any issue – Further, respondents did not
deny the factum of the execution of Ext.P4 – The very fact that they
relied upon Ext.D1, which took note of Ext.P4 as validly done, there
was no need for any suspicion on the part of the High Court –
Mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a
suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating
an inference – Appellant duly complied with the mandate of s.63,
Succession Act along with s.68, Evidence Act – Appellate Court
unnecessarily created suspicion, when there was none – Appellate
Court did not consider relevant materials and substituted its own
views when not warranted – Judgment of the Appellate Court as
confirmed in review, set aside – Decree of trial court restored.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.96 – Appellate Court, power
under – Scope and ambit of – Discussed.
Evidence Act, 1872:
ss.3, 8 – Held: When a party makes a claim based on
revocation of earlier Will, as indicated in the subsequent Will, the
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 377
377
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
acknowledgment of the former Will would form part of a conduct
leading to a relevant fact vis-à-vis a fact in issue.
ss.17, 58 – Held: When a party admits execution of a Will,
which is otherwise proved in accordance with s.63, Indian Succession
Act and s.68, Evidence Act, it becomes a relevant fact duly proved –
Indian Succession Act – s.63 – Evidence Act – s.68.
s.68 – Held: s.68 is to be followed mandatorily for proving a
Will – This provision has to be seen and read alongwith s.63,
Succession Act – Indian Succession Act – s.63.
Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 18, 27 – Held: Registration of
a Will is only an additional/attending circumstance in proving it
with the rebuttable presumption available u/s.114(e) of Evidence
Act – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(e), 115.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI, VIII – Pleadings –
Held: A relief can be on the basis of pleadings alone – Evidence is
also to be based on such pleadings – Only exception would be
when the parties know each other’s case very well and a pleading
is implicit in an issue.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines “a
fact”. Conduct of a party would be construed as a fact under
Section 8. Such a conduct may either be a previous or subsequent
one. It is the product of a motive or a preparation. When evidence
is given on the conduct of a party and if it is proved to the
satisfaction of the court particularly when it involves an admission,
adequate weightage is required to be given. Such a conduct would
include a silence emanating from a party who is expected to speak
and express. When a party makes a claim based upon revocation
of the earlier Will, as indicated in the subsequent one, the said
acknowledgement of the former would form part of a conduct
leading to a relevant fact vis-à-vis a fact in issue. Section 17
defines “an admission” which would include a statement both
oral and documentary. When such an admission is clear and
unequivocal, there is no need to prove it while taking judicial
notice. Under Section 58, a fact admitted need not be proved
unless the court warrants it. Thus, in a case where a party admits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
379
the execution of the document in the nature of a Will, which is
otherwise proved in accordance with Section 63 and Section 68
of the Indian Succession Act and Indian Evidenc

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