Bombay High Court: In an appeal against an order, wherein the Testamentary suit filed by the appellant seeking letters of administration of a Will came to be dismissed, a Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ. and Arif S. Doctor, J.* dismissed the present appeal stating that the circumstances of the formation of the Will were gravely suspicious and a heavy burden was cast upon the appellant to prove otherwise in which he remained unsuccessful.
Background and Contentions
In the present matter, the testator passed away in1991 leaving behind his three wives and eight children. Respondents were the children of the testator from his second wife. The respondent filed a testamentary petition seeking letters of administration in respect of the Will which was opposed by the appellant who is the executor of the Will. Further, the appellant filed a testamentary petition seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the said Will. By the said Will, the entire estate of the Testator, which essentially comprises of one flat was bequeathed exclusively to the third wife of the Testator to the exclusion of all the other legal heirs of the Testator. As per the appellant, the third wife had by her last will and testament bequeathed the said flat to her nephew.
Incross-examination which took place during the proceedings of the impugned order, the advocate of the testator, who was also a witness for the appellant, said that the testator was compelled to give his property to his wife to maintain peace at home. It was contended that the previous order erred in stating that ‘the Will was a reflection of another’s intentions and not the testator’s’ and that, the advocate’s cross-examination could never have meant that the Will was made under influence as contemplated under Section 61 of the Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act’).
On the contrary, counsel for the respondent stated that the cross-examination made it clear that the Will would fall squarely within Section 61 of the Act. He submitted that the said will was not a result of the testator’s free agency but only of the pressure exerted by his third wife. The counsel also pointed out that one of the three attesting witnesses had filed three affidavits each of which had a contrary stand taken by him.
Analysis and Decision:
After referring to H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31, the Court reiterated that where suspicious circumstances exist surrounding the genuineness of a Will, the burden to disprove such suspicions lies upon the propounder. Further, suspicious circumstances would include dispositions that are unnatural, improbable and unfair or which may not be the result of the testator’s free will and mind.
The Court noted that, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the said Will:
(i) completely excludes all the eight children of the Testator
(ii) is entirely silent on the reason for such exclusion
(iii) is cryptic and short
(iv) the appellant’s own witness has unequivocally stated that the Testator was in a way compelled to give his property to his third wife,
(v) the Testator passed away within a month from the date of the said Will.
Thus, the Court viewed that the circumstances would qualify as gravely suspicious and thus cast a heavy burden on the appellant to dispel. However, the Court found that the appellant has not so much as even attempted to dispel these gravely suspicious circumstances. The appellant has solely relied upon the evidence to prove the genuineness of the said Will. Thus, the Court viewed that the appellant has failed to discharge the heavy burden cast upon the appellant to remove/dispel all suspicious circumstances and prove the genuineness of the said Will.
The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Harnam Singh (2022) 2 SCC 238 while reiterating that the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act cannot be said to be fulfilled by mechanical compliance of stipulations therein. Reference was also made to Lalitaben Jyantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria 2008 (15) SCC 365 wherein the Supreme Court held that execution of a Will must be held to have been proved, not only when the statutory requirements are satisfied, but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances.
Thus, the Court said that when the genuineness of a Will is called into question, the conscience of the Court has to be satisfied that the Will is not only executed and attested in the manner required but also that the same was the product of free volition of the executant.
The Court held that the categorical answers given by the testator’s advocate, who was also one of the witnesses for the appellant, would squarely qualify as undue influence as contemplated by Section 61 of the Succession Act and not mere persuasion as contended by the appellant
[Tarun Narainsingh Advani v. Deepak Matai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1033, decided on 12-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant: Adv. Tejas Vora, Adv. D.R. Mishra, Adv. G.K. Vora, Adv. Bina Shivhare
For Respondent: Adv. Rashmin Khandekar, Adv. Anand Mohan, Adv. Mrunalini Vijay Panchal
