Meena Pradhan & Ors. Vs Kamla Pradhan & Anr. (Supreme Court Judgment)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of will held that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the testator married (Defendant2/Appellant No.1 herein) with whom he had two children namely, Defendant3/ Appellant No.2herein and Defendant4/Appellant No.3 herein. Allegedly, he divorced his first wife and solemnised another marriage with Plaintiff1/Respondent No.1 herein who gave birth to a child Plaintiff2/Respondent No.2 herein. The testator, seven days before his death (07.08.1992), executed a Will on 30.07.1992 in the presence of two witnesses.
After the death of the testator, the Plaintiffs filed a case for receiving the testator’s dues wherein a succession certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No.1 by VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 05.07.1995. Proceedings stood concluded with the reversal of such an order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in terms of order dated 17.11.1995, quashing the entire proceedings, observing the authenticity and genuineness of the Will, in existence to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
Pursuant to this order of the High Court, proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for a grant of Probate or Letter of Administration were initiated by both the Plaintiffs. The Defendants challenged the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiffs, also raising an objection about the testator having married Plaintiff No.1. The Civil Court, Jabalpur, MP vide order dated 11.12.2001, in Succession Case No. 22/98 while relying on the testimony of an attesting witness, namely, Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2) upheld the validity of the Will in favour of the beneficiaries and accordingly issued Letter(s) of Administration. The said order was challenged by the Defendants. The High Court in repelling the Defendant’s contention of the Will being a forged document, by discussing the relevant statutory provisions and decisions of this Court, affirmed the order of the Civil Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the issue that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding validity of a Will. The requirements enshrined under Section 63 of the Succession Act have to be categorially complied with for the execution of the Will to be proven in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into several case laws into consideration observed that apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
By applying these principles in present facts of the case it was held that it is evident that the Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound disposing state of mind and the same stands proven through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses, who was examined as PW2 by the Civil Court. This witness categorically states that the testator executed the Will in question and, both he and the testator signed the Will in the presence of each other.
As far as allegations made by the defendants were concerned, no evidence on record was produced to conclude that the deceased/ testator was not in a fit or stable mental condition at the time of execution of a Will, or that a Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, or the presence of any element of undue influence. Therefore, it was finally held that both the courts below have rightly noted that the relevant provisions were complied with, and given the well reasoned order upholding the validity of the Will, the same does not warrant any interference.
On basis of the above, the appeal was dismissed.
