LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can direct the supply of a copy of a will when the original has been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and its whereabouts are unknown.
CASE TYPE: Civil (Testamentary)
Case Name: A. Wilson Prince vs. The Nazar & Ors.
Judgment Date: 15 May 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 15 May 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
What happens when a crucial legal document, like a will, is destroyed, and a party seeks a copy of it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case where the original will was destroyed following the Destruction of Records Act, 1917. The court had to decide whether it could compel the authorities to provide a copy of a will that no longer exists. The bench consisted of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
The case revolves around a will executed by Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport on 19 July 1969. He passed away on 24 January 1972, in Udhagamandalam, Ooty. M/s King and Partridge was named as the executor of the will. Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, a senior partner of the firm, applied for a probate of the will under Section 222(1) and 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court granted the probate on 29 July 1972. The executor submitted an inventory on 20 January 1973, and final accounts on 9 July 1973.
Years later, on 30 January 2016, Smt. Mary Brigit, claiming to be a beneficiary, applied for a copy of the probate. When she did not receive it, she filed a Writ Petition No. 11266 of 2018, seeking a court order to compel the District Judge’s Office in Ooty to provide the probate copy. The executor, through another partner, stated that the firm could not find any records related to the case. The District Court, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that the records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19 July 1969 | Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport executes a will. |
| 24 January 1972 | Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport passes away. |
| 07 July 1972 | Probate Petition filed in the Sub Court of Udhagamandalam. |
| 29 July 1972 | Probate granted by the court. |
| 20 January 1973 | Executor filed an inventory with the court. |
| 09 July 1973 | Executor submitted final accounts. |
| 1987 | Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy, the senior partner of the executor firm, retired. |
| 1988 | Mr. Chakravarthy Duraisamy passed away. |
| 22 February 1992 | Life estate holder, Mr. J L Gabrial, passed away. |
| 1998 | Records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed. |
| 30 January 2016 | Smt. Mary Brigit applied for a copy of the probate. |
| 2018 | Smt. Mary Brigit filed a writ petition seeking a copy of the will and probate. |
| 25 November 2021 | The High Court impleaded the successors of Smt. Mary Brigit as petitioners. |
| 15 May 2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that since the records pertaining to O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed and not available, no direction could be issued to furnish a copy of the will to the petitioners. The High Court noted that the records were destroyed in accordance with the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
A. Wilson Prince, one of the successors of Smt. Mary Brigit, then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 222(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the grant of probate to an executor appointed by a will. It states that, “Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will.”
✓ Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the procedure for applying for probate.
✓ Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the executor’s duty to file an inventory and accounts. It states that, “An executor or administrator shall, within six months from the grant of probate or letters of administration, or within such further time as the Court which granted the probate or letters may appoint, exhibit in that Court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession of the deceased, and shall in like manner, within one year from the grant or within such further time as the said Court may appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to his hands and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of.”
✓ Destruction of Records Act, 1917: This act allows for the destruction of old court records after a certain period.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that original wills in testamentary matters must be preserved and cannot be destroyed under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
- The petitioner contended that the respondents were obligated to furnish details and records related to O.P. No. 15 of 1972, including the original will.
- The petitioner argued that a vigilance inquiry should be ordered to find the will.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents stated that the records of O.P. No. 15 of 1972 were destroyed in 1998, following the procedure prescribed under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
- The respondents contended that the executor had discharged their duties by obtaining the probate and submitting the accounts to the court.
- The respondents argued that the original will might have been returned to the executor with the probate order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioner: Obligation to Preserve Original Will |
|
| Respondents: Records Destroyed Legally |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether a direction can be issued to furnish a copy of the will when the original has been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917 and its whereabouts are unknown.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a direction can be issued to furnish a copy of the will when the original has been destroyed? | No. | The court cannot issue a direction to furnish a copy of a will when the original has been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and its whereabouts are unknown. The court noted that the records were destroyed legally, and there was no way to ascertain whether the will was destroyed, handed over to the executor, or lost. |
Authorities
The court considered the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 222(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the grant of probate to an executor appointed by a will.
✓ Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the procedure for applying for probate.
✓ Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section deals with the executor’s duty to file an inventory and accounts.
✓ Destruction of Records Act, 1917: This act allows for the destruction of old court records after a certain period.
| Authority | How it was considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 222(1), Indian Succession Act, 1925 | The court noted that the executor was appointed by the will and probate was granted accordingly. |
| Section 272, Indian Succession Act, 1925 | The court noted that the executor applied for probate under this section and the probate was granted. |
| Section 317, Indian Succession Act, 1925 | The court noted that the executor had filed the inventory and accounts as required under this section. |
| Destruction of Records Act, 1917 | The court acknowledged that the records were destroyed in accordance with this act. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission that the original will should be preserved and cannot be destroyed | The court acknowledged that the original will should ideally be preserved but noted that if it is not traceable after a long time, there is no way out. The court also noted that it is not possible to find out whether it was destroyed, handed over to the executor, or lost. |
| Petitioner’s submission that the respondents are obligated to furnish details and records including the original will | The court noted that the records were destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and therefore, no direction can be issued to furnish the same. |
| Petitioner’s submission that a vigilance inquiry should be ordered to find the will | The court stated that it cannot order an investigation based on a guesswork made by the petitioner. |
| Respondents’ submission that the records were destroyed legally as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917 | The court accepted that the records were destroyed legally. |
| Respondents’ submission that the executor had discharged their duties | The court agreed that the executor had discharged their duties by obtaining the probate and filing the inventory and final accounts. |
| Respondents’ submission that the original will might have been returned to the executor with the probate order | The court noted that it is a possibility that the original will might have been returned to the executor. |
The authorities were viewed as follows:
✓ Section 222(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The court noted that the executor was appointed by the will and probate was granted accordingly.
✓ Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The court noted that the executor applied for probate under this section and the probate was granted.
✓ Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The court noted that the executor had filed the inventory and accounts as required under this section.
✓ Destruction of Records Act, 1917: The court acknowledged that the records were destroyed in accordance with this act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legal Compliance (Destruction of Records Act, 1917) | 40% |
| Fulfillment of Executor’s Duties | 30% |
| Petitioner’s Lack of Knowledge of Will Contents | 20% |
| Speculative Nature of Claim | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court emphasized that the records were destroyed following the legal procedure under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917. The court also noted that the executor had fulfilled their duties by obtaining the probate and submitting the accounts. The court observed that the petitioner’s claim was based on a “treasure hunt” as the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the contents of the will. The court noted, “Therefore, this appears to be a case where the writ petitioner is on a treasure hunt, if not a wild goose chase, in the hope that there exists a treasure and that if found, it will be hers. The Court cannot go to the aid of such a person.”
The court also considered the fact that the original will might have been returned to the executor. The court stated, “In the normal circumstances, with the probate embossed on the Will, the original should have been handed over to the Executor.” The court further noted, “Today it is not possible at this distance of time to find out (i) whether it was actually destroyed; or (ii) whether it was handed over to the Executor; or (iii) whether the Executor having received it, lost it.”
Key Takeaways
✓ The Supreme Court cannot direct the supply of a copy of a will when the original has been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917.
✓ Executors are required to fulfill their duties as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, including obtaining probate and submitting inventory and accounts.
✓ Courts will not entertain claims based on speculation or “treasure hunts,” especially when the petitioner lacks knowledge of the will’s contents.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not applicable to this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when records, including a will, are destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, a court cannot direct the supply of a copy of the destroyed will. This judgment reinforces the importance of following the legal procedures for record destruction and the duties of executors under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court held that it could not issue a direction to furnish a copy of the will when the original had been destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and its whereabouts were unknown. The court emphasized that the executor had fulfilled their duties, and the petitioner’s claim was speculative.
Category
✓ Indian Succession Act, 1925
✓ Section 222, Indian Succession Act, 1925
✓ Section 272, Indian Succession Act, 1925
✓ Section 317, Indian Succession Act, 1925
✓ Destruction of Records Act, 1917
✓ Probate
✓ Wills
✓ Civil Law
FAQ
Q: What happens if a will is destroyed?
A: If a will is destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, it is generally not possible to obtain a copy of the original document from the court records.
Q: Can I get a copy of a destroyed will?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that if a will is destroyed as per the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, courts cannot direct the supply of a copy of the destroyed will.
Q: What are the duties of an executor of a will?
A: The executor is responsible for obtaining the probate of the will, submitting an inventory of the assets, and providing final accounts to the court as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Q: What is the Destruction of Records Act, 1917?
A: This act allows for the destruction of old court records after a certain period, following a prescribed procedure.
Q: What should I do if I am a beneficiary of a will and cannot find the original?
A: If the original will is not traceable, and the records have been destroyed, it is difficult to obtain a copy of the will. You may need to explore other legal options or rely on secondary evidence if available.