2008 (12) TMI 768 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Deed of Will and Deed of Gift not upheld due to lack of proof and suspicious circumstances.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the validity of the Deed of Will and Deed of Gift, both deemed not genuine due to suspicious ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Deed of Will.2. Validity of the Deed of Gift.3. Division of properties among heirs.Summary:1. Validity of the Deed of Will:The primary issue was whether the Deed of Will executed by Chathu was valid. The High Court held that the execution of the Will was 'shrouded in mystery' and that the fifth defendant failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances by adducing satisfactory evidence. The appellant did not examine the attesting witnesses, which is mandatory u/s 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court emphasized that the onus of proving the Will's legality and genuineness lies on the propounder, who must prove the absence of suspicious circumstances and the testamentary capacity of the testator. The court found that the appellant failed to prove the Will's execution, as the attesting witnesses were not examined, and the mental and physical condition of the testator was not established. Consequently, the Will was deemed not genuine.2. Validity of the Deed of Gift:The second issue concerned the validity of the Deed of Gift executed by Chathu. The High Court found that the execution of the Deed of Gift was also suspicious. The appellant did not examine the attesting witnesses, which is required u/s 68 of the Act if the execution is specifically denied. The court noted that the plaintiff/respondent had specifically denied the execution of the Deed of Gift in affidavits filed in respect of injunction applications. The appellant failed to prove the attestation of the Deed of Gift as required u/s 69 of the Act. The court held that the Deed of Gift was not duly proved and was also of a suspicious nature.3. Division of Properties:The suit was filed by one of Chathu's daughters, claiming that the property left behind by Chathu devolved equally among the heirs. The Trial Court held that certain properties (items 1 to 3, 13, and 14) were not available for division as they were covered by Ext. B1 and B4. However, the Appellate Court held that the properties covered by Ext. B2 (Deed of Gift) and B3 (Deed of Will) were available for division. The High Court upheld this decision, finding that the appellant failed to prove the validity of both the Deed of Will and the Deed of Gift. Consequently, the properties covered by these documents were deemed available for division among the heirs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the High Court and dismissed the appeal, holding that both the Deed of Will and the Deed of Gift were not duly proved and were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The properties covered by these documents were available for division among the heirs. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.