Supreme Court Upholds Husband’s Right to Retiral Benefits, Rejecting Deathbed Will: Prakash Soni vs. Deepak Kumar (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 784

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a will executed on a deathbed, amidst serious illness and questionable circumstances, override the rights of a spouse to inherit retiral benefits? This was the central question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of *Dr. Prakash Soni vs. Deepak Kumar*. The court examined whether a will, made just hours before the testator’s death, was valid, or if the husband, as the legal heir, was entitled to his deceased wife’s retiral benefits. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

Dr. Prakash Soni, the appellant, was married to Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, an assistant teacher. Srimati Mooli Swarnkar passed away on November 18, 2001, due to liver cancer and Hepatitis B. The couple had no children. Dr. Soni, being her husband and legal heir, claimed her retiral benefits, including pension, GPF, gratuity, and insurance. However, Deepak Kumar and another, the respondents and nephews of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, contested his claim. They presented a will, allegedly executed by Srimati Mooli Swarnkar on the day of her death, November 18, 2001, which nominated them as beneficiaries. They also produced nomination forms dated November 16, 2001, in their favor.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Civil Judge dismissed Dr. Soni’s application for a succession certificate, favoring the respondents’ claim based on the will. The Additional District Judge reversed this decision, granting the succession certificate to Dr. Soni. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh overturned the Additional District Judge’s order, reinstating the Civil Court’s decision. This led Dr. Soni to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which deals with the procedure for obtaining a succession certificate. The court also considered the validity of a will and the circumstances surrounding its execution. The relevant provision is:

“Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: (1) An application for a certificate under this Part shall be made to the District Judge by a petition duly verified by the petitioner in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of the High Court, and shall set forth, –
(a) the time of the death of the deceased;
(b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;
(c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;
(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;
(e) the absence of any impediment to the grant of certificate or to the validity thereof; and
(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Dr. Prakash Soni):

• The signature on the will (Ex. D/6) does not match Srimati Mooli Swarnkar’s signatures on other documents (Ex. P/4, D/7, and D/8).
• Srimati Mooli Swarnkar was severely ill with liver cancer and Hepatitis B, making it unlikely she could make decisions freely.
• The will was executed on the day of her death, just hours before she passed away, raising suspicions.
• The nomination forms in favor of the respondents were made just two days before her death, also under suspicious circumstances.
• The initial nomination forms were in favor of the husband, and there was no reason to change them.

Respondents’ Arguments (Deepak Kumar and another):

• One of the attesting witnesses supported the execution of the will.
• The Civil Court and High Court had rightly concluded that the will was validly executed.
• The deceased had cancelled her previous nominations in favor of her husband.
• The deceased had nominated the respondents in the nomination forms.

Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the will (Ex. D/6) was duly executed by Srimati Mooli Swarnkar.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Additional District Court and restoring the order of the Civil Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court did not explicitly cite any previous cases or books in the judgment.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was heavily influenced by the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The testator’s severe illness, the timing of the will just hours before her death, the discrepancies in signatures, and the sudden change in nominations all weighed against the validity of the will. The court emphasized that the propounders of the will failed to remove these suspicions and satisfy the judicial conscience regarding its due execution.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the suspicious nature of the will’s execution. While legal principles were considered, the factual matrix played a more significant role in the court’s reasoning.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The court noted that the deceased was suffering from liver cancer and Hepatitis B and was on medical leave since 1.10.2001.
• The will was executed between 7 to 8 AM on 18.11.2001 and after a few hours she expired on the very same date.
• The attesting witness was a government hospital compounder.
• The testator’s hands were shivering while signing the will, and she was administered a drip.
• The court noted that the first appellate court was justified in concluding that the propounder of the will was not successful in proving that the will was executed in a healthy state of mind as well as body of the deceased and without any pressure.
• The court found that the signatures on the will were totally different from other signatures of the deceased.
• The court stated that the dispositions made in the will may not be the result of the testator’s free will and mind.

The court concluded that “the respondents being the propounders of the will have failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court regarding due execution of the will.” The court also noted, “Since the suspicious circumstances relate to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, as well as the condition of the testator’s mind and the dispositions made in the will being unfair, the judgment of the High Court restoring the judgment of the Civil Court is liable to be set aside.” The court further observed, “In such cases, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator.”

Key Takeaways

• A will executed under suspicious circumstances, particularly on a deathbed, will be scrutinized carefully by the courts.
• The propounder of a will must prove its due execution and remove all legitimate suspicions.
• Discrepancies in signatures, the testator’s health, and the timing of the will are critical factors in determining its validity.
• Legal heirs, such as a spouse, have a strong claim to inherit retiral benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the order of the Additional District Court. The court held that the appellant, Dr. Prakash Soni, as the successor of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, is entitled to receive all her retiral benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a will executed under suspicious circumstances, especially on a deathbed, will not be considered valid if the propounder fails to remove all legitimate suspicions regarding its execution. This case reinforces the principle that the courts must be satisfied that the will represents the free and sound mind of the testator. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles of testamentary succession and the burden of proof on the propounder of a will.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Dr. Prakash Soni vs. Deepak Kumar* underscores the importance of ensuring that a will is executed without any suspicion and reflects the true intentions of the testator. The court prioritized the rights of the legal heir, the husband, over a will that was executed under questionable circumstances, thereby upholding the principles of fair succession.