Supreme Court Upholds Probate of Wills, Dismissing Suspicion of Fraud: Swarnalatha vs. Kalavathy (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 30 March 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13840 of 2019)

Judges: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian

Can a High Court reverse a probate court’s decision based on ‘suspicious circumstances’ surrounding a will, even when the testator’s signature and mental capacity are not disputed? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving two wills, where the High Court had overturned the probate court’s decision. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in finding the existence of suspicious circumstances that invalidated the wills. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the judgment authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over two wills. Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal, a couple, had two sons, V.M. Chandrasekaran and V.M. Sivakumar, and a daughter, Kalavathy.

Adhilakshmiammal passed away on 14 August 1995. She had executed a Will on 30 January 1995, bequeathing her properties to her two sons, excluding her daughter, Kalavathy, stating that she had already been sufficiently provided for.

Mannar Reddiar died on 8 August 2000. He also left a Will dated 10 December 1998, bequeathing his properties to his two sons and grandchildren, again excluding his daughter, Kalavathy, but providing reasons for the exclusion.

V.M. Chandrasekaran, the elder son, died in October 1999. He was survived by his wife, Swarnalatha, and two sons, C. Karthikeyan and C. Rishikesan (the appellants in this case).

Following this, Kalavathy and V.M. Sivakumar filed a partition suit in 2005. In response, Swarnalatha and her sons filed a petition for probate of the wills of Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The District Court, Vellore, granted probate of both wills on 7 June 2010. The daughter, Kalavathy, and the other son, V.M. Sivakumar, appealed this decision to the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Court’s decision. The High Court cited several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of both wills as the reason for its decision.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the legatees under the wills appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key legal provisions:

• Sections 270, 276, and 289 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: These sections deal with the procedure for applying for probate of a will, the contents of the petition, and the powers of the court to grant probate.
• Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section provides for appeals against the orders of the District Court in probate matters.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section outlines the requirements for proving the execution of a document that is required by law to be attested. It states that if a document is required to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Legatees) Submissions:

• The appellants contended that the parents executed their wills in a sound state of mind, following all legal requirements.
• They presented witnesses to prove the execution of the wills, including attestors and the scribe, as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• They argued that the High Court erred in reversing the District Court’s decision, as no valid suspicious circumstances existed.

Respondents’ (Daughter and Son) Submissions:

• The respondents argued that their parents never executed the wills.
• They claimed that the elder son, V.M. Chandrasekaran, fraudulently obtained their mother’s signatures on blank papers and fabricated the will.
• They raised several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of both wills.
• They also argued that the testators had no right to dispose of the properties through a will.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents’ argument regarding the suspicious circumstances is not novel, but the specific circumstances they highlighted were tailored to the facts of this case. The appellants’ arguments were more straightforward, focusing on the established legal requirements for proving a will.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the probate granted by the District Court based on the alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the wills.

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 vs. B.N. Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443]: This case was referred to regarding the principles for assessing the genuineness of a will. It was used to establish the legal standards for evaluating suspicious circumstances.
• Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. [AIR 2020 SC 544]: This recent case was cited for its comprehensive review of previous decisions on suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will. It helped consolidate the principles for evaluating the validity of a will.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section was considered to determine the manner of proving the execution of a will. The Court noted that the appellants had examined the attestors to the will as per the requirements of the section.

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 vs. B.N. Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443]* to assess the genuineness of the will and to evaluate the suspicious circumstances.
• The Supreme Court referred to Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. [AIR 2020 SC 544]* to understand the nature of suspicious circumstances that can invalidate a will.
• The Supreme Court considered Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to determine the manner of proving the execution of a will and found that the appellants had followed the procedure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The testators’ signatures on the wills were not disputed.
• The mental capacity of the testators was not questioned by the respondents.
• The reasons given by the High Court for finding suspicious circumstances were not substantial.
• The High Court overlooked the fact that the father had attested the mother’s will and mentioned it in his own registered will.
• The exclusion of the daughter from the will was explained with reasons, and such exclusion is not a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court noted that the High Court had made a mountain out of a molehill by reading too much into minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment: “But each one of the above circumstances, neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion.”

The Court further stated: “The reasons given in Exhibit P-1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way.”

The Court also observed: “We do not know how the High Court held the delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious circumstance.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere exclusion of a natural heir from a will is not a sufficient ground to raise suspicion if there is a reasonable explanation.
• Minor contradictions in witness statements are not sufficient to invalidate a will if the core facts of execution are established.
• The delay in seeking probate is not a suspicious circumstance if there is a valid reason for the delay.
• The High Court should not invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Principal District Court, Vellore, granting probate of both the wills.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not set aside a probate granted by a District Court based on minor contradictions or unsubstantiated suspicions. The court reiterated the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding the evaluation of suspicious circumstances in probate cases. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of testamentary freedom and the need for substantial evidence to challenge a will.

This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing principles related to the evaluation of suspicious circumstances in probate matters. It emphasizes that the courts should not lightly interfere with a testator’s wishes unless there is clear evidence of fraud or lack of testamentary capacity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the District Court’s order granting probate of the wills. The Court found that the High Court had erred in identifying circumstances as suspicious and that there was no valid basis to invalidate the wills. This case reinforces the importance of testamentary freedom and the need for substantial evidence to challenge a will.