Supreme Court Upholds Inheritance Rights of Granddaughters, Dismissing Will Claim: Jarnail Singh vs. Bhagwanti (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1068

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a will be considered valid if the attesting witness’s testimony is inconsistent and raises doubts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a property dispute. This case highlights the importance of proper will execution and the rights of legal heirs. The Supreme Court of India, in this civil appeal, examined whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana correctly reversed the first appellate court’s decision, which had dismissed the suit for possession filed by the granddaughters of the deceased. The bench, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around the inheritance of approximately 12 acres of agricultural land in Ludhiana, owned by Jagan Nath. Jagan Nath passed away issueless on 20 November 1977. The plaintiffs, Bhagwanti, Purni Devi, and Chanan Devi, are the granddaughters of Kirpo, who was the sister of Jagan Nath’s father. They claimed that they were the rightful heirs to Jagan Nath’s property. The defendants, Jarnail Singh and another, claimed that Jagan Nath had executed a registered will dated 17 September 1970, bequeathing the property to them. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the property after the defendants allegedly took forcible possession after Jagan Nath’s death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they were the granddaughters of Kirpo and that the will presented by the defendants was not genuine. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven their relationship with Jagan Nath. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana then overturned the first appellate court’s judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

Legal Framework

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

✓ Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which specifies the requirements for a valid will, stating that it must be attested by two or more witnesses.

✓ Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which outlines the procedure for proving the execution of a will when an attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence.

These provisions are crucial in determining the validity of the will presented by the defendants and the inheritance rights of the plaintiffs.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the lower courts and the High Court had ignored the registered will dated 17 September 1970, executed by Jagan Nath. The will was witnessed by Bachan Singh and Sadhu Singh (DW-3).
• They contended that the will was executed as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• They highlighted the admission of Mohinder Singh (PW-3), a witness for the plaintiffs, who stated that Jagan Nath had cancelled his previous will dated 24 September 1964 through the will dated 17 September 1970. This admission, according to the appellants, proved the execution of the 1970 will.
• The appellants argued that the High Court wrongly concluded that Sadhu Singh (DW-3) was not the same person who had attested the will. They claimed that a typographical error in the cross-examination of Sadhu Singh led to this incorrect conclusion.
• They presented additional documents, such as sale deeds, to prove that Sadhu Singh was indeed the same person who witnessed the will.

Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:

• The respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the will was not validly executed and that they were the rightful heirs to Jagan Nath’s property as his nearest cognates.
• They argued that the testimony of Sadhu Singh (DW-3) was not credible and raised doubts about the genuineness of the will.
• They relied on the admission of the defendants in a previous suit regarding the relationship of the plaintiffs with Jagan Nath.
• They also presented a will dated 17 April 1953, executed by Khusi Ram, a cousin of Jagan Nath, which mentioned the relationship between the plaintiffs and other family members.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Jagan Nath executed a valid will in favor of the defendants. Whether this Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of facts?
2. Whether the plaintiffs were able to establish the relationship with Jagan Nath and discharged the burden of proof?

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 365]*, reiterating that a will must be free from suspicious circumstances.
• The court explained the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the attestation of wills.
• The court explained the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding the procedure for proving the execution of a will.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence supporting the validity of the will presented by the defendants. The court found the testimony of the attesting witness, Sadhu Singh (DW-3), to be inconsistent and unreliable. Additionally, the court noted that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the will was genuinely executed by Jagan Nath. The court also considered the fact that the defendants were not related to Jagan Nath and that Jagan Nath was a well-off individual who was unlikely to depend on the defendants for his care. On the other hand, the court found that the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated their relationship with Jagan Nath through the genealogy and other evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the appellants’ arguments, stating that the evidence presented did not meet the legal standards required to prove the validity of the will. The court also noted that the defendants had not provided any reasonable explanation for why Jagan Nath would have bequeathed his property to them, given that they were not related to him and that he was a well-off individual. The court found that the plaintiffs, on the other hand, had successfully proven their relationship with Jagan Nath and their entitlement to inherit his property.

The court quoted Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 365], stating, “It is trite law that execution of a Will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the will are satisfied but the will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances.”

The court also observed, “In this case the only attesting witness DW-3 Sadhu Singh’s evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and more so it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court with regard to execution and genuineness of the Will.”

The court further stated, “The High Court was perfectly right in interfering with this question of fact more so when the opinion of the 1st appellate court was perverse and contrary to material available on record.”

Key Takeaways

• The execution of a will must be proven by credible evidence, and the will must be free from suspicious circumstances.
• The testimony of attesting witnesses is crucial in proving the validity of a will.
• Courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear error or injustice.
• Legal heirs have a strong claim to inherit property in the absence of a valid will.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a will must be proven by credible evidence and be free from suspicious circumstances. The court reiterated the importance of attesting witnesses’ testimony and the statutory requirements for a valid will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court also clarified that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there was a clear error. This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the burden of proof in will disputes and the rights of legal heirs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court found that the defendants had failed to prove the valid execution of the will and that the plaintiffs were the rightful heirs to Jagan Nath’s property. This judgment reinforces the importance of proper will execution and the rights of legal heirs in inheritance matters.