Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

52. This will was produced from proper custody, viz., that of Papamma Row and it is more than 30 years old. It is therefore open to the Court under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to presume that it is genuine. There is however ample evidence on which to determine the genuineness of the will so that it is not necessary to rely on any presumption in regard to it.

53. It will be observed that the will purports to be signed by the testator and to be written by the Sheristadar of the Estate and attested by four other persons. There is also an endorsement on it by both the widows that they agreed to act according to its terms. The genuineness of the signatures of all these seven persons has been proved and in fact is not denied by any of the parties. Nor is it denied that the will is in the handwriting of the Sheristadar. What is denied is that the testator Narayya, (or as he calls himself in the will, Appa Row) signed it. Those who impugn the will suggest that it was connected by Venkatadri (9), who was the natural brother of the testator and who was helping him in the management of the property at the time of his death. They suggest that it was owing to his influence that the attestors attested it and that the widows endorsed on it their consent to act according to its terms. There is really no evidence worth the name to support the suggestion. On the contrary there is ample evidence that the will is genuine. It is true that all the testators and both the widows were dead before the trial of O.S. No. 44, but Rangayya, the Head Accountant of Papamma Row, and the present Karnam of Sanivarpet, where the testator lived, is the son of Subbanna, the former Kurnam who attested the will. This Rangayya was examined in that suit and fully proved the signatures of his father and of all the other attesting witnesses. He also gave in as his opinion that the testator's signature to the will, and to the letter which he wrote about it to the Collector on the same day were his genuine signatures. This opinion is relevant and admissible as proof of the signatures under 47 of the Indian Evidence Act since the witness from seeing pattahs and other papers signed by the testator in the ordinary course of his duty as karnam and accountant of Papamma Row for many years, was well acquainted with the testator's signature. We see no reason to disbelieve this witness. In O.S. No. 35 of 1895, Papamma Row was herself examined as a witness and distinctly proved the execution of the will by her husband, and its attestation by the several attesting witnesses. She also proved the genuineness of the letter sent by the testator to the Collector on the same day reciting its terms. Papamma Row was a very old lady, aged about 70 years, and in feeble health when she gave her evidence, and it is not to be wondered at if her memory was defective in regard to some of the events which had taken place 33 years previously, but there is nothing in her evidence to lead us to discredit her proof of the will. She had also been examined as a witness eight years previously in O.S. No. 14 of 1888 and had then also proved the execution of the will. In that suit also another attestor, Ramadas, was examined and proved the will, as also did Venkatadri (9) who was the father of Parthasarathi (16), and who was the natural brother of the testator and was helping him to manage the estate at the time of his death. In 'that suit the Subordinate Judge held that the will was genuine and the finding was upheld by the High Court on appeal. It seems to us too that the subsequent conduct of all parties, and the probabilities of the case wholly negative the contention that the will is a forgery. Exhibit J (1) is the letter already referred to as sent by the testator to the Collector of the District on the same day (6th December) that the will was executed, in which the testator reported that he feared he was about co die and that he had made a will the terms of which he recites, and which are practically identical with those of the will, Exhibit H. This letter is proved to be in the handwriting of the Sheristadar who was also the. writer of the will, and it purports to be signed by the testator himself. It was proved both in the present suits and in O.S. No. 14 of 1888 to be genuine by the same evidence as was adduced to prove the will. The parties who impugn the will contend that the testator's signature on this letter also is a forgery, and suggest that it also was concocted by Venkatadriin order to give colour to the will, but there is no more evidence to support this plea in the one case than in the other.

54. Exhibit J(2) is a letter written three days later and signed by both the widows and sent to the Collector of the District in which they recite their husband's, illness, and the terms of the will made by him and his letter to the Collector regarding it, and send him a copy of the will and request that he will report the matter to the Board of Revenue. The genuineness of Exhibit J (2) is proved and indeed is not disputed. The facts were duly reported to the Board of Revenue and by them to Government, who, in July 1865, decided that the testator could not have intended the estate to be divided as he had provided for the adoption of a son in order to continue the family, but offered to recognise the widows as joint owners of the estate on condition of their managing it in accordance with the terms of the will. The Collector in his letter J (3) to the widows also recites that he had made enquiries under the Court of Wards Regulation and had reported that they were of suitable age and capacity to personally manage the estate and that he also found that they had appointed their late husband's brother Venkatadri (9), as manager, and that, therefore the Court of Wards had decided that it need not interfere with the estate. He therefore acknowledged them as joint owners and directed them to manage their affairs as directed in the will. This letter was written to the widows on the 4th September 1865, that is some nine months after the death of the testator, and in the interval it is clear that the attention of the revenue authorities was directed to the affairs of the estate and family. It seems most unlikely that if the will was a forgery and was known to be so not only by Venkatadri and the attestators, but also by Rangayya (11) and by his father and brothers (as Rangayya now says it was) from the very time of its forgery, the matter would not have reached the ears of the Revenue authorities. There is, however, not the slightest reason to suppose that they doubted the genuineness of the will or of the letter J (1). The testator had been managing his estate for some 37 years prior to his death and his signature must have been perfectly well known to the. Government authorities and to many persons in the Collector's office, a consideration which renders it unlikely that a forgery would have been attempted, and still more unlikely that, if made, it would have escaped the notice of the Collector and the Government authorities.

72. This was the state of things when the letters in Exhibit X series were written. The first was written in November or December 1892, that is, just before the High Court judgment in O.S. No. 14 of 1888 and the other letters after that event and between it and the death of Narayya (17) in 1895. The series is obviously incomplete and one at least is mutilated. As the letters were produced by Mulraz, the son-in-law of Rangayya (11), after Papamma Row's death, there is ground for the contention that only such parts as seemed to support Rangayya's case have been produced. Beading the series as it stands, however, the impression it produces on our minds is that Venkateswara in the interest of his master Rangayya, suggested to Papamma Row all kinds of reasons why the will might be impeached in the hope that in the discussion she might he entrapped into making admissions or giving information which might enable him at a later date to impugn the will, and with a view also to make himself indispensable to her as an adviser, and to increase her desire to keep on good terms with Rangayya lest he should attack Narayya's adoption, and this we find was, in fact, the result of the correspondence. There is not in it any admission, so far as we can see, that the will is forged. No doubt, Venkateswara after giving various reasons in prior letters as to why the will might be attacked as a forgery, boldly states in Exhibit X (c). "It is known everywhere that the will is a forgery. You may perhaps ask if several forged documents are not being upheld. That is not the case with this will, because there are many written proofs to show that the will is a forgery," and he then goes on to show that the decisions of the Courts in suits in which it had been held to be genuine would not prevent its being again contested. In reply to this Papamma Row writes "This will cannot be set aside on the ground of being a forgery because several acts have been done under the will for a long time and why will it hereafter be so easily held to be a forgery?. The number of persons who make wills when in good senses are only a fraction; all the wills are generally written after. I wish to hear reasons to say that this will is such a forgery." We cannot agree with the District Judge that these words "can only be read as an admission that the will, was forged to her knowledge." It seems to us to be a denial of the suggested forgery, coupled with a statement of reasons why the will could never be held to be a forgery. She contrasts this will with concocted wills, and wants him to state why this genuine will should be regarded as a forgery like them. In his reply Exhibit X (e) Venkteswara Row reiterates his reason for thinking that the will could be contested, and in doing so,* goes far beyond the truth as when he tells her that the original of the will had "not hitherto been filed in any public office. It has remained with you for the last thirty years." It had certainly been filed in the High Court in the Curator Proceedings in 1888 and in the Subordinate Judge's Court in O.S. No. 14 of 1888, and it is also certain that it was filed in the Tanuku Suit in 1881. He suggests to her that she should win over all the reversioners, and he points out that Rangayya (11) and his brother were beginning to think about their rights in the estate and how they could best further them in the event of her death. In her reply she says. "All the matters stated therein seem to be true. That is no more than that his arguments seemed to her to be true, and she placed on him the responsibility for defending her cause. It was after this and in consequence of the doubts raised by Venkateswara Row that the opinion of Mr. Spring Branson, the Advocate General, was obtained as to the best way of protecting the adoption against attack. These questions were drawn up Venkateswara Row, Mr. Spring Branson very properly advised against a re-adoption which was only suggested to him, evidently by Venkateswara Row, since it would only serve to throw doubt in the fact and on the validity of the adoption already made. When doubts as to the validity of the adoption were urged on Papamma Row we can see nothing unnatural or suspicious in her taking legal advice in regard to them, and the best way to cure defects if such existed.

74. The precaution that Papamma Row thought of taking was a natural one in the circumstances, but it is far from indicating that she admitted the will to be a forgery. On the contrary, if the will was really a forgery and was known by Papamma Row to be so, and if she was discussing it confidentially with her Dewan for some two years and devising means for supporting it, we cannot but think that other suggestions would have been made which would have left no doubt as to the real character of the will. We are unable to find any admission or approach to an admission by Papamma Row that the will was a forgery. Her conduct throughout has been that of a person who believed it to be genuine, and Venkatesvara Row himself in his public dealings with the will always treated it as true. So late as December 1899 (Exhibit VV) we find him asking the Collector to act upon it.