Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Will Dispute: Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (24 April 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 371
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar J., Hemant Gupta J., Dinesh Maheshwari J. (authored the judgment)

Can a will be considered valid if it contains inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, where the genuineness of a will was challenged due to several irregularities. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s decision and holding that the will in question was not genuine. This case highlights the importance of scrutiny when dealing with testamentary documents and the legal principles governing their validity.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of properties based on a Will dated 20 May 1991, allegedly executed by one Sri Sangappa Shettar of Koppal. The plaintiffs, Shivakumar, Shashidhar, and Karibasewaraj, claimed ownership of the suit properties as legatees under this Will. The defendants, including Sharanabasappa (brother of the testator) and other family members, contested the Will’s validity, asserting that it was not genuine. The defendants created a trust on 28 May 1994, including the disputed properties, which the plaintiffs challenged as illegal and not binding. The testator and his wife died in a car accident on 20 May 1994.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners of the suit properties based on the Will and stating that the trust created by the defendants was not binding on them. The Trial Court found that the Will was executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court, however, reversed the Trial Court’s decision, finding several suspicious circumstances and discrepancies in the Will, concluding it was not a genuine document. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section states that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will.
• Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section declares a Will void if its making was caused by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
• Section 62 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section enables the maker of a Will to alter or revoke the same at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the requirements for the execution of an unprivileged Will, including the testator’s signature or mark, and attestation by two or more witnesses. Specifically, clause (b) states that “The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will“.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section stipulates that a document required by law to be attested cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution.

Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Submissions:

• The plaintiffs argued that the Will was executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the testator’s signatures and attestation by more than two witnesses.
• They contended that the testator was of sound mind and voluntarily executed the Will as required by Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The plaintiffs asserted that they had dispelled all suspicious circumstances, and minor inconsistencies should not invalidate the Will, especially when the testator’s intention was clear.
• They relied on the handwritten draft (Ex. P3) to demonstrate the testator’s intention to bequeath his properties to them and the fact that PW-5 and defendant No. 7 identified the testator’s signature.
• The plaintiffs cited cases like Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr. [(1982) 1 SCC 20] and P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar and Ors. [1995 Supp (2) SCC 664] to support the view that minor discrepancies should not invalidate a will. They also cited Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan [(2004) 2 SCC 321] to argue that exclusion of legal heirs is not a suspicious circumstance.
• They argued that the High Court’s observation that the Will was drawn on blank signed papers was not supported by the evidence or pleadings and relied on Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs v. Vinod Kumar and Ors [(2012) 4 SCC 387] in this regard.
• In the alternative, the plaintiffs argued that if the High Court found a lack of evidence, it should have remanded the case under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and relied on Mohan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 92].

Defendants’ Submissions:

• The defendants refuted the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the Will was a fabricated document.
• They highlighted several suspicious circumstances, including the use of different colored papers, inconsistent signatures, and blanks in the property descriptions.
• They pointed out that the Hindi and English calendar dates in the draft of the Will did not match and past events were described as if they would happen in the future.
• The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were interested in the deceased’s properties and had forged the Will.
• They relied on K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 354] to support their argument that the propounder of the will has to prove the legality of the execution and genuineness of the will.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the decision of the Trial Court and in holding that the contested Will was not a genuine document?
2. Whether the High Court ought to have considered remanding the case to the Trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors.: AIR 1959 SC 443 – Discussed the principles for proving a Will, emphasizing the need for the propounder to prove due execution and remove suspicious circumstances.
• Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr.: (1982) 1 SCC 20 – Highlighted that the mode of proving a Will does not differ from proving any other document, except for the special requirement of attestation.
• Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors.: (1977) 1 SCC 369 – Stated that in cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator.
• P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar and Ors.: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 664 – Emphasized that there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind.
• Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan: (2004) 2 SCC 321 – Clarified that the exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance by itself.
• Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs v. Vinod Kumar and Ors: (2012) 4 SCC 387 – Discussed the error of approach on the part of the High Court while appreciating evidence relating to the Will.
• K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors.: (2009) 1 SCC 354 – Re-emphasized that the propounder has to prove the legality of execution and genuineness of the Will.
• Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Ors.: AIR 1964 SC 529 – A Constitution Bench decision that laid down the principles for proving a Will.
• Harmes v. Hinkson:(1946) 50 C.W.N. 895 – The judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect.
• Mohan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.: (2017) 4 SCC 92 – Illustrated when the Appellate Court ought to exercise the power of remand.
• Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs. and Ors.: AIR 1995 SC 1684 – Observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Defines who can make a will.
• Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – States that a Will obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence is void.
• Section 62 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Enables the maker of a Will to alter or revoke the same at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Specifies the requirements for executing an unprivileged Will.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Requires that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove the execution of a document required by law to be attested.
• Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deals with remand of case by Appellate Court on a preliminary point.
• Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deals with remand of case by Appellate Court in other cases.
• Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deals with when evidence on record is sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally.
• Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deals with where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors. [AIR 1959 SC 443]* to determine the validity of a Will, emphasizing the need for the propounder to prove due execution and remove suspicious circumstances. The Court also followed the principles laid down in Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr. [(1982) 1 SCC 20]* that the mode of proving a Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will. The Court also referred to Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors. [(1977) 1 SCC 369]* to emphasize that in cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. The Court also relied on P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar and Ors. [1995 Supp (2) SCC 664]* to emphasize that there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. The Court also followed Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan [(2004) 2 SCC 321]* to clarify that the exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance by itself. The Court considered Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs v. Vinod Kumar and Ors [(2012) 4 SCC 387]* to discuss the error of approach on the part of the High Court while appreciating evidence relating to the Will. The Court also referred to K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 354]* to re-emphasize that the propounder has to prove the legality of execution and genuineness of the Will. The Court referred to Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 529]* as a Constitution Bench decision that laid down the principles for proving a Will. The Court also referred to Harmes v. Hinkson [(1946) 50 C.W.N. 895]* to note that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect. The Court referred to Mohan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 92]* as an apt illustration as to when the Appellate Court ought to exercise the power of remand. The Court also referred to Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs. and Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 1684]* to observe that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The Court noted that the document was typed on different colored sheets of paper, the signatures were inconsistent, and there were blank spaces and incorrect descriptions of properties. The Court also found it suspicious that the Will mentioned a past event as if it were to happen in the future, and that the testator mentioned the likelihood of an accident, which later occurred.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court emphasized that the document in question fell flat at the very first question indicated in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyenger (supra) that is, as to whether the testator signed the Will in question. The answer to this question was only in the negative. This isbecause the document was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the propounders of the Will failed to remove the suspicion.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Will was not genuine due to the numerous suspicious circumstances. The Court also held that there was no need for a remand as the High Court had sufficient evidence to make a decision. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key Takeaways

This case reinforces the following key principles regarding the validity of wills:

• The propounder of a Will must prove its due execution and remove all suspicious circumstances.
• The court must be satisfied that the testator signed the Will and that it was their intention to make the Will.
• Discrepancies in the document, such as different colored papers, inconsistent signatures, and blank spaces, can raise suspicion.
• The court must be vigilant and cautious when examining a Will, especially when there are suspicious circumstances.
• Exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance by itself.
• The mode of proving a Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will.

Flowchart: Proving a Will