2004 (11) TMI 596 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms validity of will in favor of defendants

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the validity of the will (Ex.B/8) executed by Siva in favor of the defendants. The court ... Proof of Will and testamentary capacity - Suspicious circumstances and onus on propounder - Undue influence, fraud and forgery - Execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Acting upon a Will and possession by legateesProof of Will and testamentary capacity - Execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The will Ex.B/8 was duly executed, attested and the testator had testamentary capacity when he executed it. - HELD THAT: - The propounders proved that the document was written at the testator's instruction, that the testator read and signed it in the presence of the scribe and attesting witnesses, and that the attesting witnesses subscribed in his presence. Evidence showing the testator alienated other property shortly before execution, and that he was mentally alert despite advanced age and infirmity, supports the finding of a sound disposing mind. Once the propounder establishes signature, testamentary capacity and proper attestation as required by law, the onus to displace that proof shifts to the contestants.Execution, attestation and testamentary capacity in respect of Ex.B/8 are proved and accepted.Suspicious circumstances and onus on propounder - Undue influence, fraud and forgery - In the absence of pleaded allegations of forgery, undue influence or collusion, the lower appellate Court erred in holding the will to be forged; the onus to explain suspicious circumstances rests on the propounder but suspicion alone cannot overthrow properly proved execution. - HELD THAT: - The Court reiterated that where suspicious circumstances exist the propounder must dispel them by clear and satisfactory evidence; however, suspicion must be inherent in the transaction and not merely arise from conflicting testimony. Here the plaint did not plead forgery or undue influence and the defendants produced evidence explaining the circumstances (attendance on the testator, reasons for exclusion of certain heirs, and witnesses' accounts of execution). Mere differences in ink or delay in registration, without pleaded and proved allegation of forgery or coercion, do not justify reversing a finding of genuineness established by credible evidence.The High Court rightly held that absent pleaded and proved allegations of forgery or undue influence, the lower appellate Court's finding of forgery was unsustainable.Acting upon a Will and possession by legatees - The respondents acted upon Ex.B/8 and were in possession of the properties bequeathed under the will. - HELD THAT: - Trial Court findings that the defendants took possession and were enjoying the suit lands in their own right pursuant to the will were supported by evidence and restored by the High Court. Proof that legatees were put in possession and that the will was acted upon reinforced the conclusion that the will was genuine and executed by the testator.Possession and enjoyment of the bequeathed properties by the legatees in pursuance of Ex.B/8 are established.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The will Ex.B/8 is held to be duly executed, attested and acted upon; suspicious circumstances were insufficiently pleaded or proved to rebut the propounders' evidence, and the High Court correctly restored the trial Court's decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the will (Ex.B/8).2. Whether the will (Ex.B/8) was acted upon.3. Allegations of forgery and undue influence.4. Onus of proof regarding the execution and genuineness of the will.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Will (Ex.B/8)The primary issue was whether the will (Ex.B/8) executed by Siva was true and valid. The trial court found that the will was genuinely and voluntarily executed by Siva in favor of the defendants. The defendants provided testimonies from five witnesses, including the scribe and attesting witnesses, confirming that Siva was in a sound disposing state of mind and had executed the will on his own. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the plaintiffs had not challenged the validity or genuineness of the will in their pleadings and that the defendants had proved the will's execution. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, stating that the onus of proving the will lies with the propounder, which the defendants had satisfactorily discharged.2. Whether the Will (Ex.B/8) Was Acted UponThe trial court found that the will was acted upon, as the defendants had taken possession of the properties bequeathed to them and were cultivating the lands. The lower appellate court, however, doubted the will's authenticity due to the non-registration of the will and the use of different ink for the signature and contents. The High Court reversed this finding, emphasizing that the will's execution was proved, and the plaintiffs had not alleged forgery or undue influence in the plaint. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the evidence showed Siva was mentally alert and had reasons to exclude the plaintiffs from his will.3. Allegations of Forgery and Undue InfluenceThe plaintiffs alleged that the will was forged and executed under undue influence. The lower appellate court supported this view, citing suspicious circumstances such as the defendants bringing attesting witnesses and the different ink used. However, the High Court found no basis for these allegations as they were not pleaded in the plaint. The Supreme Court reiterated that the onus of proving forgery or undue influence lies with the plaintiffs, who failed to provide evidence supporting their claims. The court noted that the defendants had satisfactorily explained the circumstances surrounding the will's execution.4. Onus of Proof Regarding the Execution and Genuineness of the WillThe Supreme Court emphasized that the propounder of a will must prove its execution, the testator's sound disposing state of mind, and the absence of suspicious circumstances. In this case, the defendants met these requirements by providing clear and satisfactory evidence. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had the burden of proving allegations of forgery or undue influence, which they failed to do. The court cited precedents, including Sm. Chinmoyee Saha v. Debendra Lal Saha and Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, to support its findings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the will (Ex.B/8) was valid, executed by Siva in a sound disposing state of mind, and acted upon by the defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations of forgery and undue influence were not substantiated, and the onus of proof had been correctly discharged by the defendants. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.