1976 (10) TMI 161 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court grants widow share in husband's properties over disputed will

JASWANT KAUR Versus AMRIT KAUR & ORS.

JASWANT KAUR Versus AMRIT KAUR & ORS. - 1977 AIR 74 ; 1977 SCR (1) 925; 1977 SCC (1) 369; 1987 SC 767 (2) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to maintenance or share in the estate.2. Validity and proof of the will.3. Customary law vs. statutory law.4. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the will.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Maintenance or Share in the Estate:The plaintiff, Gulab Kaur, initially filed a suit claiming maintenance or alternatively a one-half share in her deceased husband's estate. The defendant contended that she had deserted her husband and was not entitled to any share. The trial court struck issues based on these pleadings. Later, Gulab Kaur gave up her claim for maintenance and sought a one-half share in the estate. The trial court decreed in her favor, granting her a one-half share based on 'overwhelming documentary evidence' that under the customary law, a sonless widow was entitled to an equal share with the male progeny born of a co-wife. The High Court, however, set aside this judgment, holding that the will excluded the plaintiff from the estate, thus dismissing the suit.2. Validity and Proof of the Will:The defendant, Surjit Inder Singh, propounded a will allegedly made by Sardar Gobinder Singh on November 26, 1945, which left almost the entire property to him. The trial court held that the defendant failed to prove the will as the last testament of Gobinder Singh. The High Court, however, accepted the will as duly established. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the will. The Court cited the principles from R. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thirnmajamma, stating that a will must be proved like any other document, but with an additional solemnity due to the absence of the testator. The Supreme Court found that the defendant failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove the due execution of the will.3. Customary Law vs. Statutory Law:The trial court's judgment relied on the customary law, which was openly conceded by the parties, that a sonless widow was entitled to a one-half share in the estate. The High Court dismissed this reliance by upholding the will, which excluded the plaintiff. The Supreme Court noted that if the will was invalidated, the plaintiff would be entitled to a half share under the customary law.4. Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding the Will:The Supreme Court found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the will:- The will was not discovered until 2.5 years after the testator's death.- The defendant's explanation of discovering the will was deemed 'patently lame and unacceptable.'- The will was attested by two strangers, raising doubts about its authenticity.- The will was drafted with legal jargon but lacked details about the properties.- The appointment of executors, who were not consulted or examined, added to the suspicion.- The will's content was deemed unnatural and unfair, as it excluded several close relatives without a plausible reason.The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant failed to discharge the heavy onus of explaining these suspicious circumstances and establishing the will as the last testament of Gobinder Singh. The Court criticized the High Court for not addressing these suspicious circumstances and for accepting the will without proper scrutiny.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the trial court's judgment, granting the appellant a one-half share in the properties of her deceased husband. The appellant was also entitled to recover costs from the respondents. The appeal was thus allowed.