Kerala High Court
* 1. Meenakshi Amma vs * 1. Madhavi Amma on 11 September, 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/22ND PHALGUNA, 1938
AS.No. 146 of 1997 (E)
-----------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 350/1992 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR
DATED 11-09-1996
APPELLANT(S) (Plaintiff) :
------------
* 1. MEENAKSHI AMMA
D/O.THEKKE PADASSERY KALLIANI AMMA,
KOZHIKKUNNU DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK. (Died)
Suppl.Addl. 2. P.NARAYANAN
S/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, NOW RESIDING AT CHELOOR
HOUSE, ANTHIKKAD PO., THRISSUR - 680 641.
(Supplemental Appellant No.2 impleaded as the LR of the
deceased appellant vide order dated 20.2.2017 on
I.A.No.8/2007)
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
SRI.M.HARISHARMA
SRI.JOJI VARGHESE
SRI.D.NARENDRANATH
RESPONDENT(S) (Defendants) :
--------------
* 1. MADHAVI AMMA
D/O.THEKKE PADASSERY LATE KALLIANI AMMA,
KOZHIKUNNU DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK. (Died)
2. RADHAMMA
D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, KOZHIKKUNNU DESOM,
KILLANUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, ASSISTANT MANAGER,
CREATIVE BOOKS & PERIODICALS PVT. LTD., HALIN BUILDING -7,
NAMBKAI LANE, BOMBAY - 400 001.
A.S.No.146/1997
: 2 :
* 4. VIJAYANARAYANAN
S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, C/O.T.RAMACHANDRAN, ROOM NO.4,
2ND FLOOR, TUKARAM SMRATHI BUILDING,
NEAR KOLSHAWADI POLICE STATION, KALLYAM EAST - 421 301,
THANE DISTRICT. (Died)
[It is recorded that 4th respondent Vijayanarayanan,
S/o.Madhavi Amma died vide order dated 22.11.2010
in memo dated 01.03.2010 IN CF NO.1381/10.]
5. SIVASANKARAN
S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, 65/8, SAI SADAN GAR DEVI HOUSING
SOCIETY, GHANASHYAM GUPTA ROAD, DOMBI WEST - 421 202,
THANE DISTRICT.
6. VALSANKUMAR
S/O.RADHAMMA, KOZHIKKUNNU DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK.
7. VINOD (MINOR)
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN-MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT
RADHAMMA, KOZHIKKUNNU DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK.
8. VINITHA (MINOR)
REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN-MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT
RADHAMMA, KOZHIKKUNNU DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK.
* Addl. 9. P.GOPALAN
S/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, VANI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY EXTENSION
ROAD, VARODIA NAGAR, BOMBAY. (Died)
Addl. 10. PADMAVATHY
W/O.GOVINDAN KUTTY, PADASSERY HOUSE,
MULAMKUNNATHUKARA PO., THRISSUR.
Addl. 11. PANKAJAKSHY
W/O.NEELAKANDAN, LAVANYA, MULAMKUNNATHU KAVU PO.,
THRISSUR.
Addl. 12. SATHI
W/O.VENUGOPAL, "SOUPARNIKA", MULAMKUNNATHU KAVU PO.,
THRISSUR.
(Supplemental Respondents 9 to 12 is impleaded as the
LR's of the deceased first respondent vide order dated
20.2.2007 on I.A.No.8/2007)
A.S.No.146/1997
: 3 :
Addl. 13. REMA
W/O.VIJAYANARAYANAN, THEKKE PADASSERY HOUSE,
MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU PO., THRISSUR.
Addl. 14. VARNA [MINOR AGED 17 YEARS]
D/O.VIJAYANARAYAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER,
REMA, W/O.VIJAYANARAYANAN, THEKKE PADASSERY HOUSE,
MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU PO., THRISSUR.
Addl. 15. VANDANA [MINOR AGED 14 YEARS]
D/O.VIJAYANARAYAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER,
REMA, W/O.VIJAYANARAYANAN, THEKKE PADASSERY HOUSE,
MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU PO., THRISSUR.
(Legal heirs of deceased 4th respondent are impleaded
as additional respondents 13 to 15 as per order dated
7.2.2014 in I.A.No.1498/2010)
Addl. 16. SANTHA GOPAL, AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.LATE P.GOPALAN, F-03 MAHINDRA PARK, NARAYAN NAGAR,
LBS MARG, GHATKOPAK WEST, MUMBAI - 400 086.
Addl. 17. RAJANI JAYAN , AGED 41 YEARS
D/O.LATE P.GOPALAN, DO.DO.
Addl. 18. RATISH GOPAL, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.LATE P.GOPALAN, DO.DO.
R2-R8,RADDL.13TO15 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
R2TO8,RADDL.13TO15 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2017,
THE COURT ON 13.3.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'C.R.'
V.CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
-------------------------
A.S.No.146 of 1997
Dated-------------------------2017
this the 13th day of March,
J U D G M E N T
Chitambaresh, J.
Which of the two Wills alleged to have been executed by Nanikutty Amma who died issueless is legal and valid in law? The issue needs to be resolved in the context of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. The plaint schedule property of extent 5.53 acres is admittedly the self-acquisition of Nanikutty Amma under Ext.A1 sale deed. Nanikutty Amma died on 31.7.1991 leaving behind her two sisters by name Meenakshi Amma (the plaintiff) and Madhavi Amma (the first defendant). One another sister by name Devaki Amma who was a spinster had died even earlier on 6.2.1986. The plaintiff relied on Ext.A4 A.S.No.146/1997 2 Will dated 27.12.1988 whereas the defendants relied on Ext.B1 Will dated 12.12.1972. The legatees under Ext.A4 Will by Nanikutty Amma are the plaintiff and the first defendant who take the property in equal shares. The legatees under Ext.B1 Will by Nanikutty Amma are the first defendant and Devaki Amma who take the property in equal shares.
3. Defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the first defendant and defendants 6 and 7 are the children of the deceased second defendant. The plaintiff died pending Appeal Suit and her legal heirs are the second appellant and respondents 9 to 12 herein. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the attesting witness to Ext.A4 Will was examined as PW.2 in support of the plaint claim. The first defendant was examined as DW.1, a neighbour as DW.2 and the attesting witness to Ext.B1 Will was examined as DW.3 in defence.
4. The court below has held that Ext.A4 Will has not been duly proved and has dismissed the suit for partition A.S.No.146/1997 3 after upholding Ext.B1 Will. The plaintiff has come up in appeal contending that Ext.A4 Will ought to have been upheld and a preliminary decree for partition passed. The plaintiff points out that the evidence in the case has not been properly appreciated by the court below. The plaintiff adds that the evidence falls short of proof of due attestation and execution of Ext.B1 Will as per law. There was no reason to discard Ext.A4 Will whereunder the plaintiff gets one-half right over the property is the argument canvassed.
5. We heard Mr.D.Krishna Prasad, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr.T.Krishnanunni, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The dexterity with which both the counsel put forth their respective contentions in the case was indeed marvelous.
6. We shall first consider the due execution of Ext.A4 Will by which Ext.B1 Will is alleged to have been revoked by virtue of Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, A.S.No.146/1997 4 1925 as contended by the plaintiff. Ext.A4 Will does not inspire confidence in Court in as much as an unexplained gap is left between the body of the recitals and the signature of the testator in both the pages. A closer scrutiny of the signatures found therein reveals that it varies from page to page and the signature of one of the attesting witnesses in a dot pen also raises suspicion about its veracity. Nothing is mentioned in Ext.A4 Will either about the execution of Ext.B1 Will earlier or the necessity to execute Ext.A4 Will in supercession of the disposition of property already made. What prompted the testator to execute Ext.A4 unregistered Will revoking Ext.B1 registered Will is also a pertinent question which elicited no answer though pondered over. Added to this is the fact that the plaintiff examined as PW.1 deposed that Devaki Amma was present at the time of execution of Ext.A4 Will even though she had died two years earlier. Ofcourse we cannot agree with the reasoning of the court below that the testator would A.S.No.146/1997 5 not have gone to her tharwad house solely for the execution of Ext.A4 Will. In fact there was no necessity for the testator to execute Ext.A4 Will since the property would have even otherwise devolved on the plaintiff and the first defendant (in the absence of Ext.B1 Will) . This is because Devaki Amma who is disinherited under Ext.A4 Will had pre-deceased the testator and the property would devolve on the plaintiff and the first defendant only. Suffice it to say that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ext.A4 Will have not been dispelled by the plaintiff as the propounder to uphold the dispositions thereunder.
7. This takes us to Ext.B1 Will and it remains to be tested as to whether the mandatory provisions of Section 63
(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are complied with. A reference to the statutory provisions would be profitable to evaluate the evidence of DW.3 who was not only the scribe but also the A.S.No.146/1997 6 attesting witness to Ext.B1 Will.
Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 :-
"63. Execution of unprivileged Wills:- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or in an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-
(a) x x x x
(b) x x x x
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." (emphasis supplied) A.S.No.146/1997 7 Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :-
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested:- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence."
DW.3 has testified that he has seen the testator signing Ext.B1 Will and that the testator has seen him signing Ext.B1 Will as an attesting witness and also that he has seen the other witness signing Ext.B1 Will. But DW.3 is silent as to whether the other attesting witness has seen the testator signing Ext.B1 Will or that the testator has seen the said witness signing Ext.B1 Will as an attesting witness.
8. The plaintiff was quick to rely on Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam [(2003) 2 SCC 91] wherein the intricacies as regards the mode of proof of a Will have A.S.No.146/1997 8 been explained as under:-
10. ........... On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the will has got to prove that the will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the will was that of the testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has to be called for proving due execution of the will as envisaged in Section 63. Although Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that a will has to be attested at least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that a document, which is required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the court. In a way, Section 68 A.S.No.146/1997 9 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a will in a court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though the will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a will. To put in other words, if one attesting witness can prove execution of the will in terms of clause (c) of Section 63 viz. Attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of the other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of a will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of attestation of the will by the other witness also it falls short of attestation of will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required A.S.No.146/1997 10 under Section 63 of the Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove the attestation of the will by the other witness there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act."
(emphasis supplied) The above decision has been followed with approval in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others [2008 (15) SCC 365] and Rur Singh and others v. Bacahan Kaur [2009 (11) SCC 1].
9. The law requires that atleast one attesting witness if alive should be examined to prove the execution of a Will who has to satisfy not only the attestation of the Will by himself but also by the other witness. The failure to satisfy the requirements of attestation of the Will by the other witness A.S.No.146/1997 11 also falls short of the due attestation of the Will by atleast two witnesses for the execution of a Will. The Supreme Court has even earlier clarified this position in Gopalakrishna Pillai and others v. Meenakshi Aayal and others [AIR 1967 SC 155] wherein it was observed as follows:-
"On further cross examination, he added that Balasubramanya was saying and writing something on the Will, but he did not actually see Balasubramanya writing or signing. We are satisfied that Samiyappa did not see Balasubramanya putting him signature on the Will. The High Court rightly held that the appellants failed to prove the signature of Balasubramanya or the attestation of the Will by him. On this ground alone, we must hold that the Will was not proved. "
The observation in Varghese v. Oommen [1994 (2) KLT 620 (DB)] that the attesting witness examined need depose about the attestation by the other witness if only the same is disputed runs contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court. A.S.No.146/1997 12
10. It would have been ideal had DW.3 testified that the other attesting witness has also seen the testator signing Ext.B1 Will and that the testator has seen the said attesting witness signing Ext.B1 Will. But DW.3 was categoric in his deposition that 'he is aware that Unni Nair was the other attesting witness and that he has seen Unni Nair signing Ext.B1 Will who is no longer alive'. The above is certainly a circumstance to be taken note of in considering the proof of a Will as the witnesses cannot be expected to depose with mathematical precision. We are emboldened to hold so in view of Constitutional bench decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta and another [AIR 1955 SC 363]. The following excerpt is apposite:
"Pws.1 and 2 are the two attestors and they stated in examination in chief that the testator signed the Will in their presence and that they attested his signature .......... It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because the A.S.No.146/1997 13 witnesses did not state in examination in chief that they signed the Will in the presence of the testator, there was no due attestation. It will depend on the circumstances elicited in evidence whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. This is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence. "
(emphasis supplied) That the witnesses cannot be a stickler for minute details is again reiterated in Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal and others [(2010) 14 SCC 266] and the following excerpt would be useful:-
"As was observed by this Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443], in the matter of proof of documents as in the case of proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty." (emphasis supplied) We do not for a moment state that a Will can be upheld even if the evidence of the attesting witnesses fall short of the prescriptions under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, A.S.No.146/1997 14 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Suffice it to say that the circumstances brought out in the evidence of DW.3 are sufficient to uphold the due execution of Ext.B1 Will as opined by the court below.
11. The plaintiff hastens to add that suspicious circumstances surrounding the due execution of Ext.B1 Will have not been dispelled by the defendants and that the same cannot be treated as a valid disposition. One of the circumstances pointed out is that Ext.B1 Will does not even acknowledge the plaintiff as the sister of the testator and that no reasons have been stated to disinherit her. Such a contention does not appeal to us as the very purpose of execution of a Will by a testator is to alter the normal devolution of her property. The other circumstance projected is that the property obtained by the testator under a decree for partition in O.S.No.299/1970 have not been included in Ext.B1 Will in contra distinction to Ext.A4 Will. It is for the testator to A.S.No.146/1997 15 decide which all property are to be included for bequest under the Will and the present suit is concerned only with the property taken in by Ext.B1 Will. Yet another circumstance highlighted is that the beneficiary has taken a prominent part in as much as one of the attesting witnesses to Ext.B1 Will is the husband of the first defendant. The same cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance since the first defendant is a beneficiary not only under Ext.B1 Will but also under Ext.A4 Will relied on by the plaintiff.
12. The only question that remains to be considered is the share of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property even if Ext.A4 Will is not accepted and Ext.B1 Will is accepted as true and genuine. A perusal of the recitals in Ext.B1 Will would indicate that the testator intended to give the legatees - the first defendant and Devaki Amma - distinct shares in the property bequeathed. This is reinforced by the fact that the legatees are to divide the property bequeathed in equal shares A.S.No.146/1997 16 after the death of the testator when only there is a devolution as per the bequest. The share of the plaintiff can be worked out gauging the effect of the words showing the intention of the testator to give distinct shares with reference to Section 107 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
107. Effect of words showing testator's intention to give distinct shares:-
"If a legacy is given to legatees in words which show that the testator intended to give them distinct shares of it, then, if any legatee dies before the testator, so much of the legacy as was intended for him shall fall into the residue of the testator's property."
It should be presumed that the legatees take the property as tenants-in-common under normal circumstances if the bequest is in favour of two persons as held in Dakshayani v. Balakrishnan Nair [1995 (2) KLT 267 (DB)]. The legatees take the property as joint tenants only if there are clear and distinct words in the Will to the effect that the testator intended that A.S.No.146/1997 17 there shall be a joint tenancy. The distinct and clear words found in Ext.B1 Will unmistakably reflect that the testator intended that the legatees shall take the property in equal moieties of half share each. There was no unity of title at the time of commencement of the devolution for Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to operate and treat the legatees as joint tenants. Therefore the half share of Devaki Amma under Ext.B1 Will who pre-deceased the testator would fall into the residue of her property which would devolve on the plaintiff and the first defendant equally.
13. Resultantly the plaintiff would get one-fourth share and the first defendant would get three-fourth share over the plaint schedule property and a preliminary decree is accordingly passed. There can be no inhibition in law to grant a lesser share than that claimed in the suit even though the impact of Section 107 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was not specifically pleaded. Any one of the parties are free to A.S.No.146/1997 18 apply for the passing of the final decree for partition and the quantum of mesne profits and the liability to pay the same are left open to be decided in such proceedings.
The Appeal Suit is allowed in part. No costs.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE SATHISHSd/-
NINAN, JUDGE nj/07.03.2017 //True copy// P.S. to Judge.