Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In reply, the respondent-company have submitted that the appeal discloses no cause of action against the company and in any event no cause of action has accrued to the appellant to file or maintain the appeal and further stated that the appeal against the respondent is misconceived and not maintainable. It is stated that the appellant is guilty of delay or laches and/or that the claim of the appellant is barred by the law of limitation. In reply the respondent-company stated that they do not admit the appellant as the widow of the late Shri Dev Raj Vadera, as alleged or otherwise. It is stated that the company is not aware whether the said deceased expired on April 1, 1986, as alleged and/or he died leaving behind the alleged will whereby the deceased bequeathed his entire estate to the appellant. It is further stated that the will is not a valid will and is, therefore, of no effect as the will has not been executed and attested in the manner provided under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The witness clause of the will reads as under :

"In witness whereof, I have signed this will in the presence of undermentioned witnesses, who have submitted thereto as attesting witnesses in my presence".

4. It is further stated that in the present case the testator has signed the will in the presence of witnesses ; it is, however, not stated whether or not the witnesses and/or either of them have attested or signed the will in the presence of each other. Under the circumstances, the respondent-company has stated that the will is void and of no effect. It is further stated that they are not bound to recognise the will or the validity thereof and or that under the alleged will of the said deceased, his alleged wife, is exclusively entitled to hold the estate of the deceased as an absolute owner with full power of disposition as alleged or otherwise. Under the circumstances, it is stated that unless the legal representatives obtain a probate or letters of administration or succession certificate from a duly constituted court of competent jurisdiction in respect of the said will, the respondent-company cannot give any recognition or way to the said will. Under the circumstances, it is stated that the respondent-company can only treat the said deceased as having died intestate. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid position, the transfer agents of the respondent-company have already intimated the appellant on July 26, 1986, that the transmission of shares could only be effected on the appellant obtaining a suitable legal representation from any competent court in India and the shares could not be transmitted to her name on the authority of the certified copy of the will forwarded. The respondent-company has also invited attention to articles 62 and 65 of the articles of association of the company which are reproduced hereunder :

6. In the rejoinder, the appellant has denied that the appellant is guilty of any delay and laches and/or that the claim is barred by law of limitation. It is stated that the appellant wrote several letters asking for the shares to be registered in her name and stating that she has furnished all necessary evidence to show that she was the bona fide legatee by virtue of a duly executed will. Despite such letters and despite the legal position as explained to the respondent-company, that a will does not have to be probated in the present case, when the respondent-company ignoring the above averments communicated its refusal to transfer the shares by its letter dated January 30, 1990 ; the appellant filed the present appeal within the statutory period of two months. It is further stated that the will is a valid will since it is has been executed in accordance with the mandatory Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and further invited attention to the said provision which states "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." It is further stated that the respondent has merely to satisfy itself in accordance with the standards of a reasonable prudent man that the appellant is the sole legatee under the will and their two sons are the only other heirs of the deceased. It is further stated that article 62 of the articles of association empowers the respondent to dispense with the production of probate "upon such terms as to indemnity or otherwise". It is further stated that the stand of the respondent reduces the entire Indian Succession Act and the right that the appellant has under the Act to inconsequence.

27. In the reply to the petition and also during arguments the company raised certain objections regarding the validity of the will. One of them is regarding the attestation by the witnesses that they have not signed in the presence of each other. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the testator had signed the will in the presence of attesting witnesses and the attesting witness had affixed their signatures on the said will in the presence of the testator. At the time of hearing, the appellant has filed two affidavits of Sri Bharat Bhushan and Sri R.N. Sharma confirming that Sri Dev Raj Vadera, son of the late Sri Hans Raj, has left a will executed by him on March 25, 1986, at New Delhi in favour of his wife Smt. Pushpa Vadera, the appellant in this case ; after having read with full knowledge and approval of its contents, with the filing of these affidavits affirm that they have signed the said will as witnesses in each other's presence, the defect pointed out by the company no longer subsists. As per sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, a will is required to be affirmed by witnesses and no particular form of attestation is prescribed and it is also not necessary that more than one witness should be present. What is required is that a will should be attested. We have on record two affidavits from the attesting witnesses. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the advocate appearing for the respondent-company in this regard. In fact the respondent-company in its letter dated January 25, 1990, never raised any objection regarding the execution of the will. As such we do not find the objection relating to the validity of the will sustainable.