Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant No. 1, Janardhan Badrinarayan Patel, was the stepson of the testatrix, and the respondent No. 4, Manoramaben, and the respondent No. 5, Premila, her stepdaughters. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7, Vadilal and Shantilal, were the cousin brothers of the testatrix.

2-1. A petition for probate, being Misc. Application No. 552/70, of the will in question was filed on 21-10-1970, under Rule 165 of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules, 1961, in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, stating that the applicants, Sheth Ambalal Himatlal, Sheth Chandrakant Motilal Jagabhaivala and Kesuprasad Motilal Jani were the executors named in the will of Chandanben and they would faithfully administer the property. A certified photo copy of the will was produced along with the application stating that the original will be produced during the hearing. The affidavits of the attesting witnesses, Chandulal Jagannath and Chimanlal Jivanlal were filed along with the application, as required by law. In that probate application, the stepson of the testatrix, Janardhan put forth his objections at Exh. 31. The said Caveator alleged that the will was false and got up and that at the relevant time, when it purports to have been executed by Chandanben, she was not in a sound disposing state of mind and that she was completely overpowered by the applicants and had acted under undue influence. It was also alleged that the will was not executed by deceased Chandanben and, even if proved, it would not be operable, since it was vague, uncertain and wanting in necessary particulars. It was also alleged that Chandanben was keeping ill-health due to old age and due to cataract in both the eyes, she had nearly lost her vision. It was contended that the testatrix did not know and could not consider the implications of the dispositions made in the will. It was also alleged that the original applicants were co-trustees with the deceased in several trusts and therefore they had taken advantage of their position and exercised undue influence over the deceased in getting the will executed. It was further alleged that the will was unnatural and was created to defeat the interest of the Caveator, his real mother and sisters.

2-3. Similar were the objections of the present respondent No. 5, Caveator Premilaben, who in her objections dated 17-1 -1972 at Exh. 50 filed in the probate application, which was adopted by her as the written statement on 17-1-1975 by note Exh. 6 filed in the suit, and she also, in paragraph 9 of that affidavit, in terms stated that after Chandanben expired on 7-5-1967, the petitioners (i.e. the executors) along with Munim Natvarlal, had taken over the possession of all the properties, including the residential house in which she had passed away, and that they had taken custody even of the gold ornaments, diamonds and pearls belonging to this Caveator, which were not returned to her, despite repeated demands. In view of the contest, the probate application was convened into Civil Suit No. 2873 of 1974 and Janardhan, stepson of the testatrix, filed his written statement, Exh. 20, raising similar contentions, as were raised by him in his objections, reiterating that the testatrix had acted completely under the undue influence of the plaintiffs. It was reiterated that the testatrix did not execute the will and that it was not a valid will. It was also contended that his real mother, Shardaben, and sisters, Manorama and Premila, were residing with the deceased since about 2 weeks prior to 1 -5-1967, being the date on which the will is said to have been executed. It was reiterated that the deceased had lost her vision due to cataract in both the eyes and was mentally and physically feeble and not in a sound disposing state of mind. The allegations regarding undue influence were also repeated.

5-3. It is then recorded that on l-5-1949,there was a partition of the moveable properties of the joint family between her husband Badrinarayan and minor, Janardhan, Sharda and the testatrix and four declarations were registered in that regard on 6-5-1949. It is stated that the moveable property, which came to her under such declaration, became her own property and there was also partition of the immoveable property between these members of the joint family and under the partition-deed dated 18-5-1949, certain immoveable properties came to her share. It is stated that she had made registered will dated 19-9-1950 in respect of the said moveable and immoveable properties, which had come to her share on the partition of the joint family and that will she was hereby cancelling. Then are enumerated the move-able and immoveable properties, out of these properties, which had remained with her, in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f). Sub-paragraph (a) enumerates immoveable property of survey No. 548 Part, admeasuring 1391 sq. yards in Wadej. In sub-paragraph (b), there is reference to the shares of mill companies mentioned therein, which were acquired by her out of the proceeds of the immoveable properties at Naroda, which was sold by her a decade back. In sub-paragraph (c), there is mentioned immoveable property, which is described as Survey No. 68-68A and 70-B Part, plot No. 4, admeasuring 562 sq. yards in Shahibaug Patel Society. In sub-para (d), there is mention of the insurance policies which amount, as stated therein, was spent by her on her stepdaughter, Manorama's marriage. In sub-para (e), it is: stated that all the ornaments, diamonds, pearls, household furniture and other effects which she had received from her husband Badrinarayan in her share, were already given to her stepson, Janardhan. and his sisters and mother and therefore nothing was required to be done in respect thereof. In sub-paragraph (f), it is stated that she had an account in Central Bank of India in which there was a sum of Rs. 200/- lying in credit.

12.4. We have noted the contents of the Will hereinabove and prima facie they appear to be rational and the Will appears to have been only executed. The Will records the fact that in the past the testatrix had executed registered Wills and also unregistered Wills and by referring to the specific dates and registration numbers, they have been expressly cancelled. The property which was acquired by the testatrix during the partition of the joint Hindu family from her husband Badrinarayan Jamnadas has been bequeathed to her stepson Janardhan and as noted above, that property also consists of immovable properties. The properties which devolved upon her from her father's side under the Will of 1928, as also those which were given to her by her father during his life time as well as those acquired from the income of the properties given to her by her father all are separately dealt with in the Will and these are enumerated in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" of the Will, as noted in detail hereinabove. These properties which were acquired from her father, were given by her to various charities as noted above. The three executors loosely called trustees in the Will are described as persons of her confidence. These persons were, as submitted before us, trustees even in her previous registered Will of 1955. It has come in evidence that Kesuprasad Jani was a co-trustee with her in various trusts. Therefore, persons already known to her and who were of her trust and confidence are named as the executors in the Will. As regards the property, which had devolved on the testatrix from her father's side, it could not have by inheritance gone to her stepson Janardhan, in view of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 547 : (AIR 1987 SC 1616), in which it was held that the exclusion of stepson from clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be said to be unfair on the ground that he would thereby be deprived of a share in the property of his father. The word "sons" in clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Act, would meansons born out of the womb of a female by the same husband or by different husbands including illegitimate sons too in view of Section 3(j) of the Hindu Succession Act as well as adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inheritance. Thus, as regards the properties which devolved on her from her father and are not given to her stepson Janardhan, it cannot be said that the Will was on the face of it irrational, improbable or unfair.