Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1376 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Kanchan Ben

2013-07-30

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the dismissal of his petition for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Act regarding will dated 10.6.1982 said to have been executed by Indermal. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant Ashok Kumar claiming himself to be the adopted son of deceased Indermal, who died on 11.6.1982 at Bhilwara, filed application on 2.1.1992 for grant of probate of will dated 10.6.1982 said to have been executed by deceased Indermal. The appellant did not implead any one as party respondent to his application and when notice of the application was published in the news-paper, respondents No. 1 to 3 Smt. Kanchan Ben, Smt. Manbhar Jain and Smt. Prem Devi filed objections to the grant of probate. It was inter-alia submitted that the so-called will dated 10.6.1982 was forged and concocted as deceased Indermal was seriously ill on 10.6.1982 and was unconscious and died on 11.6.1982 at 11:00 a.m. Before death when said Indermal was in better condition, he had executed a will on 5.6.1982 in favour of the said objectors and Smt. Gishi Bai, mother of the appellant-applicant Ashok Kumar. As deceased had no son he executed the will in favour of his four daughters i.e. the 3 objectors and mother of applicant-Ashok Kumar. Several circumstances raising suspicion on the will dated 10.6.1982 were also indicated. It was inter-alia submitted that litigations regarding the property of Indermal were pending in which objectors and Smt. Gishi Bai were impleaded as parties and they received their share of the mortgage money and gold ornaments left by Indermal were distributed amongst them, the silver left by Indermal was sold by Smt. Gishi Bai and the amount was spent for the last rites of the deceased. The appellant was aware of the litigations, however, no objection was filed by him based on his being adopted son or on account of the will said to have been executed in his favour. 3. The appellant filed his reply to the objections and contested the claim of the respondents regarding execution of will dated 5.6.1982 in their favour. The fact of his adoption was reiterated and it was denied that he had any knowledge about the litigation as he lives separately from his mother. 4. 3. The appellant filed his reply to the objections and contested the claim of the respondents regarding execution of will dated 5.6.1982 in their favour. The fact of his adoption was reiterated and it was denied that he had any knowledge about the litigation as he lives separately from his mother. 4. The trial court framed seven issues. On behalf of the appellant Ashok Kumar himself was examined as AW-1 Bhanwar Singh - attesting witness as AW-2, Satyendra Kumar - scribe as AW-3 and on behalf of the objectors NAW-1 Smt. Kanchan, NAW-2 Inder mal son of attesting witness Kishan Lal Gangwal and NAW-3 Anil Ajmera - grand son of attesting witness Heera Lal were examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the adoption of the appellant to deceased Indermal was not proved; the will said to have been executed in favour of the appellant Ashok Kumar was shrouded by suspicious circumstances, will dated 5.6.1982 was executed in favour of the Objectors; after death of Indermal, the jewellery was distributed between the daughters and consequently dismissed the application filed by the appellant. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the fact of adoption of the appellant was duly proved and merely on account of minor contradiction in the statements, the trial court committed mistake in holding that the appellant has failed to prove his adoption. 7. It was further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court committed grave error of law and fact in dismissing the application filed by the appellant, inasmuch as the execution of the will was duly proved before the trial court. The attesting witness and the scribe had appeared in the witness-box and clearly supported the appellant's version and proved the execution of the will by deceased Indermal. It was submitted that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application merely on account of suspicion raised by the respondents. The respondents had failed to prove the allegations made by them in their objections and have further failed to prove the execution of will in their favour and consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. The respondents had failed to prove the allegations made by them in their objections and have further failed to prove the execution of will in their favour and consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. It was inter-alia submitted that the appellant has failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances shrouding the will and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It was submitted that the execution of will in favour of the Objectors is duly proved and consequently, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. So far as the case of adoption of appellant to Indermal is concerned, the appellant has miserably failed to prove the basic requirements of proving the adoption, inasmuch as, despite the fact that both his father and mother were alive, they did not enter the witness-box so as to prove giving their son in adoption by them and taking in adoption by Indermal, which is sine qua non for a valid adoption. Further the apparent contradiction in the statement of appellant wherein he claimed adoption on 5/6.4.1982, AW-3 Satyendra Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the appellant claimed that Ashok Kumar was taken in adoption on 10.6.1982 i.e. the date of execution of the will itself, the admission of the appellant that despite the adoption allegedly taking place in the year 1982, nowhere in any of the records he has got name of his father changed from natural father to the so-called adopted father. The said contradiction in evidence and absence of natural consequences to the adoption was sufficient for the trial court to come to a conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his adoption. Consequently, the said finding does not require any interference and the same is upheld. 11. As the determination of validity of a will arises for consideration before a Court only after the death of the testator, and therefore, the author of the will is not available for affirming its genuineness, therefore, extreme care has to be taken before a conclusion is drawn, because the issue being adjudicated upon will determine, whether or not the testament is indeed the desire expressed by the deceased. If it is a genuine desire, the same must be implemented. If, however, the testament is not genuine, giving effect to the same would be an endorsement of deceit committed against a dead person. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74 reiterated the nature and standard of evidence required to prove of will and observed as under:- "10. There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in R. Venkatachala lyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma . The Court, speaking through Gajendra-gadkar, J., laid down in that case the following propositions : 1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicious before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." 13. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." 13. Applying the above standard laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the burden to prove the execution of the will by testator and dispel the suspicious circumstances, if any, is on the propounder of the will, the present matter needs to be examined. 14. Certain features of the present case needs to be noticed that the appellant, who is grand son (daughter's son) is seeking legacy of his maternal grand father to the exclusion of his mother and three aunties; will is claimed to have been executed just a day prior to the death of the testator; no reason has been indicated in the will to disturb the natural line of the succession; and the application seeking probate of the will was filed 10 years after the death of the testator. The will Ex.-1 dated 10.6.1982 inter-alia, indicates as under:- " esjh cM+h cPph] ifRu Jheku 'kkUrh ykyth tSu ( /keyhoky ) fuoklh HkhyokMk ds iq= Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu gSA bldks cpiu esa gh xksn iq= dh gSfl;r ls eSaus ikl j[k j[kk gSA " 15. The above assertion in the will that Ashok Kumar is son of Shanti Lal and Smt. Gishi Bai and that from childhood the testator has kept him in the capacity of adopted son clearly belies the basic assertion made by the appellant that he was adopted by Indermal on 5/6.4.1982, inasmuch as, he has been described him as son of Smt. Gishi Bai and it has further been indicated that from childhood the appellant has stayed with the testator 'in the capacity of an adopted son', meaning thereby that he was not adopted and consequently, the entire basis set up by the appellant for the testator to execute will in his favour gives way. 16. Further several suspicious circumstances, in which the will dated 10.6.1982 is apparently shrouded have not at all been8 dispelled by the appellant. 16. Further several suspicious circumstances, in which the will dated 10.6.1982 is apparently shrouded have not at all been8 dispelled by the appellant. In view of the fact that the will was executed on 10.6.1982 and the testator died on 11.6.1982, it was incumbent on the appellant, the propounder of the will, to prove by cogent evidence that the testator was in valid disposing state of mind just a day before his death, no evidence in this regard has been produced except for one attesting witness and the scribe of the will, whose presence appears to be merely accidental/chance at the time of execution of the will. Further the appellant has failed to explain his silence regarding the will dated 10.6.1982 for a period of 10 years when admittedly the property was in possession of the tenants and the objectors claimed that they were receiving the rent and were impleaded as parties in litigation relating to the said property. 17. The other important aspect is that the will is inscribed on Rs. 5/- stamp paper, which bears purchase date of 29.5.1982 and was purchased for the purpose of a gift deed. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming regarding execution of the will on a stamp paper, which was purchased for the purpose of execution of a gift deed. 18. The most important and clinching aspect of the matter is that the appellant got issued a notice dated 30.10.1990 (Ex.-2) from his counsel to his three aunties and mother calling upon them to handover the original adoption deed said to have been executed by Indermal adopting appellant and the document being allegedly in possession of Smt. Kanchan Ben. The said notice which was issued on 30.10.1990 does not mention a word about the so-called will dated 10.6.1982 and merely relies on appellant's adoption by Indermal on 6.4.1982. 19. The very fact that the appellant and/or his counsel did not make a mention of the will dated 10.6.1982 in the notice dated 30.10.1990 clearly indicates that the said will apparently was not even in existence on that day i.e. 30.10.1990. The reason is not far to seek if the will dated 10.6.1982 was in existence, the appellant would have relied on the said will only and not merely on the adoption deed in the notice Ex.-2. The reason is not far to seek if the will dated 10.6.1982 was in existence, the appellant would have relied on the said will only and not merely on the adoption deed in the notice Ex.-2. The so-called adoption of the appellant by Indermal would only make the appellant entitled to ⅕th share in the property alongwith four daughters of late Indermal, while the will makes him (the appellant) sole owner of the entire property left by Indermal. 20. From the above facts it is ex-facie clear that the will is shrouded by numerous suspicious circumstances. Mere production of one attesting witness and the scribe, whose presence in the facts and circumstances of the case on the date of so-called execution is also doubtful and the absence of the four daughters just a day before the death of their father, who was critically ill cannot be believed, makes the execution of the will itself quite doubtful. 21. In view of the above, it is apparent that the appellant has not only miserably failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances shrouding the will but has also failed to prove the due execution of the will dated 10.6.1982. 22. The issue relating to execution of will in favour of the daughters on 5.6.1982, therefore, looses significance inasmuch as testate or intestate succession, in either case, the property of deceased Indermal would be succeeded by his four daughters. 23. In view of the above, the appeal has no substance, the findings recorded by the learned trial court does not require any interference and consequently, the same is dismissed. 24. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******