On January 3, the Supreme Court reiterated that merely registering a will does not make it valid. The will must be proven as per the requirements set out in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The former pertains to the execution of unprivileged wills, while the latter deals with the proof of the execution of documents, including wills.
Legal Framework for Proving Wills: Section 63 of the Succession Act & Section 68 of the Evidence Act
The Court emphasized that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the execution of a will. The Bench, comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, relied on recent judgments, such as Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo, to underscore the need for proper evidence in establishing the will’s validity.
Case Background: Dispute Over Property Partition and Will Validity
The case concerned the partition of property by Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar (the testator), who had divided his property into four schedules. Three of these were allotted to his first wife and children. The appellants contested the validity of the will, asserting their rights to the property. However, both the Trial Court and the High Court had rejected their claim based on the will, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis: Contradictory Statements in the Will
At the outset, the Court noted the contradictory statements regarding the testator’s health in the will. One part stated that the testator was “with full conscious, with good memory and without instigation,” while another mentioned that he was suffering from heart disease and had received medical treatment. The Court also highlighted that the defendant No.1, the testator’s wife, acknowledged her husband’s poor health and claimed that he executed the will in Madurai under the danger of death, with no role in its preparation.
Inadequate Proof of Execution and Mental Soundness
The Court pointed out that the propounder of the will must prove two key elements: first, that the will was signed by the testator, and second, that the testator was mentally sound and understood the nature of the will at the time of its execution. Despite the appellant’s claim that the will was executed without any external influence, the fact that the pages on which the will was typed were purchased in the appellant’s name raised doubts.
Further, the Court observed that there was no evidence confirming that the testator had fully understood the will’s contents. While a witness testified that the notary public had read the will to the testator, this was not documented in the will itself, raising additional suspicion about its validity.
Additional Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding the Will
The Court also found it suspicious that the will was executed at Madurai, a location far from the testator’s residence. Furthermore, the attesting witnesses were not known to the testator, which added to the concerns regarding the will’s authenticity. Given the testator’s poor health, the Court questioned why he could not dictate the will himself and instead required a notary to read it to him.
Court’s Conclusion: Failure to Prove Will’s Genuineness
After considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the will’s validity and genuineness. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, which deemed the will suspicious and invalid, were upheld. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no reason to interfere with the lower courts’ findings.
Final Ruling: Appeal Dismissed
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that in cases involving wills, the burden of proving its authenticity lies with the propounder, and without sufficient evidence, the will cannot be upheld.
Case Name: Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023
Lawcutor 