Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. The facts of the Kekobad S. Khambatta case (supra) are rather interesting. In the said case, there was a 12 page Will along with a codicil prepared by a solicitor at the instance of the testatrix. The Will was torn in part by the testatrix on the advise of the Solicitor. It was further written in the Gujarati language that the "Will is cancelled" on the first page. The first two pages of the Will also were found crossed by pen. The signature of the testator and the codicil of the other portions of the Will remained undisturbed. Two pages in between were found blank.

40. In those circumstances, the Court discussed the scope of Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act and went on to hold that the Will has not been revoked in the manner indicated under the Act.

41. Reference was, however, made in the Khambatta case (Supra) to a decision of a three- Judges bench of the Calcutta High Court headed by the then Chief Justice, in the case of Jaharlal De Vs. Dhirendralal De reported in (1915) 20 Calcutta High Court Notes 204.

42. In the Jaharlal De case (supra), the facts were that the Will in question was marked by the testator on the instructions of his attorney as cancelled. Her signatures were struck out and the Will was torn in the middle for about 3 or 4 inches. Tearing of the Will according to three-judges bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jaharlal case (supra) amounted to a revocation within the meaning of Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.