Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. First, we will consider the question of genuineness of the will. When we say that we are examining the genuineness of the will, we only mean that whether the will has been signed by the testator and testatrix knowing that they are executing a will. Of course, this question has got real significance as to the other aspects we have to consier like suspicious circumstances and the sound disposing state of mind of the testator and testatrix.

26. In this context, we have to bear in mind that the will is a registered will and it has been registered by the executors presenting the document before the Registrar in his office, the father died on 30-8-1984 and the mother on 19-1-1980. It is also relevant to note that the first defendant the eldest son of the executors of the will alone contested the case: D.W. 2 is the first defendant. Admittedly, the father lived after the execution and registration of the will for about 5 years and the mother lived for more than six months. D.W. 2 deposed that the mother on no occasion, was laid up with illness (matter in vernacular omitted) and that the father died at the age of 90. In nutshell, D.W. 2 said that he is contesting the case on the ground that the father and mother had no right to execute a will and on this basis he said that no probate should be granted. We may quote here the words of D.W. 2 before the court, (matter in vernacular omitted).

28. From what we have quoted from the affidavit, it is plain and clear that the first defendant has no case that the will has not been executed by his father and mother. Considering the fact that the only contesting defendant, the eldest son of the executors of the will with whom the executors were living plainly admits in the affidavit that the will has been executed by his parents and that the will is a registered will, we find it difficult apart from the legal lacings as to the due execution and proof of the will to say Ext. A1 is not a genuine document in the sense that Ext. A1 does not contain the signatures of the parents of plaintiff and defendants.

30. Now we shall advert to the question of any suspicious circumstances. We have already adverted to the physical and mental condition and the other attendant circumstances relevant to the execution of the will by the parents. Those circumstances may not be sufficient for the court to hold that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Of course it is a fact that simulataneous to the execution of the Will, the parents have cancelled Ext. B3 udampady. We do not want to go into the circumstances which led to the cancellation of Ext. B3. The propounders have attempted to give evidence to justify the action of the parents cancelling Ext. B3. We do not want to decide the question of the validity of the cancellation of Ext. B3 and the further question of the title to the property to the executors of the will.

49. P.W. 2 is not the scribe, but he is the person who has prepared the will. The second witness, Sivarama Pillai is the scribe. Plainly PW2 has said that in his presence, the executors signed. A reading of the entire evidence of P.W. 2 would show that immediately after the executors have signed the will, he has also signed the will. It has come out in evidence that the will was written in the office of P.W. 2 and from the will it is clear that it was written on 14-5-1979. A reading of the entire evidence would show that the witness P.W. 2 has signed it to bear witness to the fact that the executors have signed. The sequence of his statement would make it clear that after the executant signed, the witnesses also signed the document. Little bit of vagueness is such in the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 2 has said that he has signed the document as a witness and says that the second witness has signed as a scribe. He says so, only on account of the fact that the second witness in the will has described himself as the scribe. A scribe also can be an attestor. If P.W. 2, the first witness in the will is an attestor, the description of Sivarama Pillai as second witness is indicative of the fact that he has also signed the will just like the first witness has signed. Both have described them in their official capacity with reference to their licence number and the first witness in the will P.W. 2 said that he is the person who prepared the will, and the second witness is the person who has written the will.