Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.55 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
25.1. The objection on behalf of the appellant does not stand in conformity
with the law declared in H. Venkatachala Iyengar and Rani Purnima Debi
(supra) and scores of other decisions where this Court has consistently held
that the probate proceeding is ultimately a matter of conscience of the
Court; and irrespective of whether any plea in opposition is taken or not, a
propounder of Will is required to satisfy the conscience of the Court with
removal of all the suspicious circumstances. By the very nature and
consequence of this proceeding, filing or non-filing of written statement or
objections by any party pales into insignificance and is of no effect. The
67
probate proceeding is not merely inter-partes proceeding but leads to
judgment in rem and, therefore, even when no one contests, it does not
ipso facto lead to grant of probate. The probate is granted only on proof of
Will as also on removal of suspicious circumstances, if there be any, to the
final satisfaction of the conscience of the Court.
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Ppk Gopalan Nambiar vs Ppk Balakrishnan Nambiar And Ors on 7 March, 1995
16. A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of
succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to
result in earlier reducing or depriving the share of natural
heirs. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural
heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true
that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious
circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or
mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been
excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself
without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious
circumstance specially in a case where the bequest has been
made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan
Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar and Ors.: [1995] 2
SCR 585, it is the duty of the propunder of the Will to remove
all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane
and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting
mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in
removing the suspicious circumstances, the court has to give
effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the
sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. ….. In
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v . Panchanan Banerjee
(dead) by LRs. and Ors.: AIR 1995 SC 1684, it was observed
that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should
not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind
execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of
62
succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every
case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are
fully debarred and in some cases partly.”
24.6.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Surendra Pal & Ors vs Saraswati Arora & Anr on 9 August, 1974
It has also been held by
Supreme Court in Surinder Pal vs. Saraswati Arora: (1974) 2
SCC 600 that where propounder takes prominent part in the
execution of Will which confers on him a substantial benefit
that is itself one of the suspicious circumstance which he
must remove by clear evidence. In the present case no
evidence is led by appellant to satisfy the conscience of the
court to clear the aforesaid suspicious circumstance existing
at the time of making of Will Ex.PW1/H. The propounder was
required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory
evidence.”
30
17.5. Turning on to the respondent No. 2 (son of the testatrix), the High
Court found that absolutely no reason was provided in the Will for excluding
him from the said immovable property and for limiting his benefit under the
Will to the balance amount in the savings bank account of the testatrix. The
High Court observed that though the appellant had deposed that there were
strained relations between the testatrix and respondent No. 2 but, on the
contrary, the witness PW-3 Major General Manjit Ahluwalia, son of sister of
the testatrix, as also respondent No. 1 had deposed that their relations, in
fact, were satisfactory. The High Court again referred to the documentary
evidence as regards regular maintaining of good relations between the
testatrix and her son, like those of birthday card and the family
photographs, and observed that if at all there were strained relations, the
testatrix would not have even bequeathed any amount to her son. Again,
after a thorough analysis of the evidence on record, the High Court found
that there was no sufficient evidence of strained relations between the
testatrix and her son to such an extent that she would have excluded him
from her immovable property. Hence, the exclusion of respondent No. 2
from bequeath was also taken to be that of a grave suspicious
circumstance casting doubt on the genuineness of the Will in question. The
High Court, inter alia, observed,-
B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006
20.4. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in B.
Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. : (2006) 13 SCC 449;
H. Ventakachala Iyengar; and Rani Purnima Debi (supra) amongst
49
others, to submit that the Probate Court can investigate into the matter of a
Will despite the fact that the signature found thereon has been proved or
ingredients of Section 68 of the Evidence Act has been complied with.