Shivakumar & Ors. Vs Sharanabasappa & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reversing the decree of the Trial Court in a suit for declaration and injunction concerning ownership of immovable properties claimed under a Will dated 20.05.1991. The plaintiffs asserted that they acquired ownership of the suit properties under the Will executed by the deceased testator and challenged the validity of a trust created by the defendants after the testator’s death. The defendants disputed the genuineness of the Will, alleging that it was a fabricated document and raising several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. One of the trustees supported the plaintiffs and accepted the Will.
The Trial Court framed issues primarily concerning the genuineness of the Will, the plaintiffs’ ownership, the validity of the trust, and the consequential reliefs. After examining oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of the attesting witnesses and the advocate who allegedly retained the Will in a sealed cover, the Trial Court held that the Will had been executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It accepted the evidence that the sealed cover containing the Will and its handwritten draft had been handed over to the advocate by the testator and opened after his death in the presence of Swamiji. The Trial Court also found that the attesting witnesses had consistently deposed regarding execution and attestation of the Will and held that minor discrepancies regarding typing, property description, dates, blank spaces, non-registration, different coloured sheets, use of different pens, and other inconsistencies were insufficient to discredit the document. It further held that the testator was in a sound state of mind, had cancelled his earlier Will, maintained a close relationship with the plaintiffs, and intended to exclude certain defendants from succession. Accordingly, the Trial Court declared the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit properties, held that the trust created by the defendants was not binding on them, and granted permanent injunction.
