Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

81. For the purpose of proving the Will for granting of probate, Sections 59, 61, 63(c), 74, 75, 82, 87, 124, 222, 255, 276, 295 of the Indian Succession Act are very relevant.

82. In so far as the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is concerned, Sections 3, 5, 17, 45, 47, 58, 64, 67, 68, 69, 74, 90, 101, 102, 103, 104, 114, 118, 137 are very much relevant.

83. In so far as the Madras High Court Original Side Rule is concerned, Order 25 Rule 9 is very much important.

84. The contention of the first defendant Dr.Vasantha Balakrishnan is that the disposition in the Wills is unfair, unnatural and improbable and therefore, she suspects the genuineness of the Wills.

(ii) The dispositions made in the Will by the testator are unnatural, unfair and improbable as wife and grandchildren were excluded from the benefit thereof despite the fact that he had love and likings for all;

(iii) There is no recital in the Will that the appellant's sister, who was married to a Muslim boy, was to be specifically excluded;

(iv) Why the Will had been executed by the testator within 24 hours of his hospitalisation has not been explained;

(v) Witnesses to the Will were interested persons, and evidence adduced in support of execution of the Will was unsatisfactory, particularly when the doctor treating him had not been examined;

(d) Broadly speaking, the uneven distribution of assets among children by itself cannot be taken as a suspicious circumstance. In such an event, the standard of scrutiny has to be different than in the ordinary cases more so when no reasons are given for such disposition.

(e) In relevant circumstances or in a given situation, unnatural or improbable or unfair disposition may give suspicion to the Court when it will be a suspicious circumstance.

(f) When a second Will is executed within a very short duration after the first Will, say within a few days or few weeks and whereunder there is complete exclusion of one branch (which branch was given a share under the first Will), a suspicion is bound to arise and that suspicious circumstance has to be satisfactorily explained by the person concerned.

220. As indicated in the body of this Judgment, the interpolation in both the Wills have not been attested by the testatrix and testator. Similarly, the corrections in the impugned Wills have also not been initiated or attested by the testator or testatrix. Under these circumstances, DW-1 has claimed that the Wills are improbable, unnatural and vitiated by suspicious and fraudulent circumstances. She has also deposed that though her parents had subscribed their signature in both the Wills projected by late K.Seshadri, the impugned Wills did not reflect their true state of mind as they were subjected to physical and mental trauma and stress on account of their age, ailments and undue influence exerted by her brother K.Seshadri who had been controlling their movements at the relevant point of time. Besides this, she has also deposed that the signatures of her father and mother appear to be very shaky which is also one of the vitiating circumstances to indicate that her brother Mr.K.Seshadri had practiced fraud, coercion, threats for bringing about the impugned Wills unmindful of the consequences that such fraudulent Wills would not pass the test of judicial conscience at a later date in a Court of law.