Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 959 (GAU)

Sachindra Kr. Baruah v. Prutuli Baruah

2018-06-19

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent. 2. By this testamentary appeal under section 299 of the Succession Act, 1925, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 13.12.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Misc. T.S. (P) No. 24/2004, thereby granting probate of the last Will and testament dated 23.9.2001 of late Bhubaneswar Barua @ Bapi Barua, who died on 14.10.2001. 3. The propounder of the Will is Smt. Putuli Baruah, wife of the testator, who was also appointed as the sole executor of the said will. At the time of his death, the testator had left behind the following relatives, viz., (1) Sri Tapan Kumar Barua, son of late Lakhi Kanta Barua, (2) Smt. Monima Barua, wife of late Jagannath Barua, (3) Sri Malay Barua, son of late Jagarmath Barua, (4) Sri Mrinmoy Barua, son of late Jagannath Barua, (5) Smt. Boby Barua, daughter of late Jagannath Barua. 4. The propounder of the Will had filed a petition for grant of probate, which was registered as Misc. (Probate) Case No. 139/2002. Upon finding that as there was no objection, the learned District Judge, Nagaon, granted probate by order dated 5.4.2003. Thereafter, one Sachindra Kumar Barua (signed as Sachin Kr. Barua) had filed a petition under section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of probate granted to the propounder, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 106/2003. In the said petition, it was projected that the objector was one of the uterine brothers of late Bhubaneswar Barua and that their mother was late Snehalata Ghose (since dead). It was claimed that as their father had no issue from the first wife, he married Snehalata Ghose, a widow, who had three sons from her previous marriage, namely, himself, Ratan and Tapan, who had accompanied their mother, out of which Ratan had died and Tapan had left Nagaon and his whereabouts was unknown since last 20-25 years. On death of late Snehalata Ghose, property dispute arose between the testator and Bhubaneswar Barua, and T.S. No. 49/1995 was then still pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Nagaon. The said objection was sustained and the probate granted by order dated 5.4.2003 was revoked and TS (P) No. 24/2004 was registered. 5. On death of late Snehalata Ghose, property dispute arose between the testator and Bhubaneswar Barua, and T.S. No. 49/1995 was then still pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Nagaon. The said objection was sustained and the probate granted by order dated 5.4.2003 was revoked and TS (P) No. 24/2004 was registered. 5. In the written objection, it was claimed that the testator had died unmarried and that the propounder of the Will was the sister of the testator, being the daughter of late Naba Kanta Barua, the uncle of the testator and, as such, it was claimed that the propounder could not be the legally married wife of the testator without there being a valid marriage, as such, the Will was stated to be full of suspicious circumstances. It was stated that the Will was prepared as an after-thought and, as such, it was prayed that the probate petition be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed— (i) Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? (iii) Whether the petitioner is the legally married wife of late Bhubaneswar Barua? (iv) Whether Bhubaneswar barua duly and validly executed the Will in favour of the petitioner? (v) Reliefs. 7. The propounder examined herself as PW-1 and had exhibited Will (Ext. 1) and Marriage Certificate (Ext. 2). She had also examined three other PWs, namely, Sri Deepak Rajak (PW-2), Sri Pranjit Bora (PW-3), and Sri Prasanta Hazarika (PW-4). The objector, namely, Sri Sachindra Kr. Baruah examined himself as DW-1. 8. On examining the records, the issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the propounder by holding that there was cause of action for the suit and the suit was maintainable in the present form. With regard to issue Nos. 3 and 4, the learned trial court had discussed the evidence of the PWs and held that though the propounder had taken part in the preparation of the Will, but she had explained that it was the wish of the testator not to divulge about the Will to others. With regard to issue Nos. 3 and 4, the learned trial court had discussed the evidence of the PWs and held that though the propounder had taken part in the preparation of the Will, but she had explained that it was the wish of the testator not to divulge about the Will to others. By observing that as the testator was ill and was issueless, it was natural and obvious choice for him to seek help from his wife to prepare the Will, as such, it was held that the Will cannot be indicted because the propounder was present beside the executor and helped him to organize execution of the Will by calling the writer and other witness. It was also held that no suspicious circumstances existed for not calling any other relatives at the time of execution of the Will as it was normal human psychology of not incurring displeasure of relatives who did not get any share of his personal properties/belongings. It was held that both the attesting witnesses had proved the execution of the Will by the propounder in their presence and he was in a normal state of mind. It was held that in the cross-examination, nothing adverse could be extracted. Applying the test as laid down in the case of Vrindavanbai v. Ramchandra Vithal, (1995) 5 SCC 215 : AIR 1995 SC 2086 , it was held that the propounder did not take active part in execution of the Will, the signature of the testator in the Will [Ext. 1(1)] was not shaky, the testator was in sound frame of mind. The learned trial court had found that as the testator was issueless and had lived with the propounder as husband and wife for a long period, had obviously bequeathed his property to the propounder. It was held that even if the marriage between the parties was void, it did not negate the Will. It was held that no suspicious circumstances existed. Hence, the said two issues were decided in favour of the propounder of the Will. Accordingly, the propounder of the Will was held to be entitled to obtain probate of the Will. The suit was allowed without cost. 9. Challenging the grant of probate, the learned counsel for the appellant had questioned the validity of the relationship between the testator and the propounder on the ground that they were not legally married. Accordingly, the propounder of the Will was held to be entitled to obtain probate of the Will. The suit was allowed without cost. 9. Challenging the grant of probate, the learned counsel for the appellant had questioned the validity of the relationship between the testator and the propounder on the ground that they were not legally married. By referring to the Will, it was submitted that the same was written in a crammed up manner and the signature was shaky, which gives rise to the existence of suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will. It is also submitted that the learned trial court had erred in rejecting the plea of the appellant that the absence of any other relative as attesting witness was also the existence of suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the points raised in the trial were raised once more. 10. It is seen that in her cross-examination that the propounder, PW-1 had admitted about existence of the prohibited degree of her relationship with the testator, with whom she was married vide Ext. 2. However, her evidence about the voluntariness of the execution of the Will could not be demolished. She had denied the preparation of Will after death of the testator and it could not be demolished that the propounder had actively participated in the preparation of the Will, rather, she remained consistent in her cross-examination to the effect that she acted as per the wishes of the testator and that she was forbade from disclosing about the Will to others. The PW-2, who was the writer of the Will had stated in his cross-examination that he had written the Will as per the version of the testator of the Will and the Will was signed by the attesting witness and that the Will was not a fabricated Will. PW-3, who was the attesting witness had stated in his cross-examination that the signatures marked as Ext. 191) and Ext. 1(2) was put in his presence and that the Will was written as per the testator and after he had read the Will to the testator, he had signed the Will and at his request the PW-3 had also signed the Will. He had stated in his cross-examination that the testator was in sound health and mind. 191) and Ext. 1(2) was put in his presence and that the Will was written as per the testator and after he had read the Will to the testator, he had signed the Will and at his request the PW-3 had also signed the Will. He had stated in his cross-examination that the testator was in sound health and mind. PW-4 had stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place testator, propounder, PW-2 and PW-4 were present with one other woman and the Will was already been drafted before he had arrived and that he had put his signature on being asked after reading it. He had denied that he, PW-I, PW-2 and PW-4 had collusively drawn-up the Will. 11. On a perusal of the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the DW-1, is seen that apart from stating about the testator and propounder were related under prohibited degree, as such, they were not married. It was merely stated that the testator had not executed any Will. There is no statement in the evidence-on-affidavit that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, or that the signature was shaky or that the Will was written in a crammed up manner so as to arouse suspicion. It is seen that no attempt was made to get the Will examined by a handwriting expert so as to establish that the signature on the Will was not that of the testator. It is seen that the learned trial court, on visual inspection of the Will did not find that the signature of the testator in the Will was shaky. Therefore, the appellant had not been able to successfully demonstrate that the execution of the Will was mired with suspicious circumstances. 12. In the opinion of this court, the learned trial court while granting probate was not required to decide the existence of a valid marriage of the propounder with the testator. It is only required to examine whether the Will in question was the last wish and testament of the testator, and whether the same was validly prepared and executed and whether the same was above suspicion. In all these counts, it is found that the learned trial court had correctly decided the relevant issue Nos. It is only required to examine whether the Will in question was the last wish and testament of the testator, and whether the same was validly prepared and executed and whether the same was above suspicion. In all these counts, it is found that the learned trial court had correctly decided the relevant issue Nos. 3 and 4, by holding that the appellant could not establish the existence of any suspicious circumstances in the execution of the last Will of the testator, which is found to have been executed by the testator in the presence of the independent scribe and two attesting witness. Thus, the execution of the Will has been successfully proved in accordance with section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This court finds that no valid doubt could be created with regard to the condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the Will. Moreover, considering the long standing relationship between the testator and the propounder, the disposition of property by the testator in favour of the propounder does not appear to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances. Therefore, the decision on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 also cannot be faulted with. 13. Thus, in view of the discussions above, the judgment of the learned court below is found sustainable on facts and in law, and the same is hereby confirmed by holding that the respondent is entitled to probate of the last Will and testament dated 23.9.2001 of late Bhubaneswar Barua @ Bapi Barua. 14. The appeal is dismissed with cost.