Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Will Dispute: Murthy vs. Saradambal (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 10th December, 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.

Can a will be considered valid if there are doubts about the testator’s state of mind and the circumstances surrounding its creation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a disputed will. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s decision, which had initially rejected the will due to suspicious circumstances. This judgment, authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, underscores the importance of proving a will’s validity beyond reasonable doubt, especially when suspicious circumstances are present.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the will of E. Srinivasa Pillai, who died on January 19, 1978. The will, dated January 4, 1978, bequeathed his house to his son, S. Damodaran, excluding his daughters. S. Damodaran died intestate on June 3, 1989, leaving behind his wife, C. Saradambal (the first plaintiff), and two daughters. The testator also had two daughters, Savitri Ammal and Padmavathi, who are the defendants in this case. The daughters filed a suit for partition of the property in 1990, which led to the plaintiffs filing a petition for Letters of Administration based on the will.

The daughters contested the will, claiming it was fabricated and the testator’s signature was forged. They argued that their father was bedridden due to a paralytic attack and was incapable of making a will. They also pointed out that the will surfaced only after they filed the partition suit, fifteen years after their father’s death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petition for Letters of Administration was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit (T.O.S. No. 20 of 1994). The Trial Judge framed two issues: (1) Whether the will was executed by the testator while in a sound and disposing state of mind? (2) To what relief are the parties entitled? The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the will was not valid due to suspicious circumstances. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reversed the Trial Court’s decision and decreed the suit. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses the following legal provisions:

• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the requirements for a valid will, including that the testator must sign the will, and it must be attested by two or more witnesses. “The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed.”
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution. “If a document is required by law 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.”

These provisions ensure that wills are properly executed and that there is reliable evidence to support their validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the propounder of the will must prove that the testator had a sound mind and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s execution.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The will was concocted to deprive the daughters of their rightful share in the property.
• The testator was bedridden due to a paralytic stroke and was not in a sound state of mind to execute the will.
• The signature on the will does not match the testator’s known signatures on other documents (Exs. P2 and P3).
• The will surfaced only after fifteen years and after the daughters filed a suit for partition.
• The attestors of the will were not known to the testator but were known to the first plaintiff.
• The testator died within fifteen days of the will’s execution, raising doubts about his mental state.
• The son of the testator, who was a practicing advocate, was unaware of the will’s existence.

Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:

• The will was validly executed by the testator.
• The execution of the will was proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
• The signatures on the will matched the testator’s signatures on other documents.

The core of the appellants’ argument was that the will was a fraudulent document created to disinherit the daughters, while the respondents contended that the will was genuine and executed by the testator with a sound mind.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants highlighted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s execution, such as the testator’s poor health, the short time between the will’s creation and the testator’s death, and the fact that the will was not disclosed for fifteen years. This was a key point in their argument.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein and consequently, decreeing the suit filed by them.

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 relied on H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443]* to emphasize the unique nature of proving a will, requiring the court’s conscience to be satisfied.
• The Court cited Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and others [1977 1 SCC 369]* to highlight that when a will is suspicious, the burden is on the propounder to offer a cogent explanation.
• The Court referred to Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh [2009 (3) SCC 687]* to illustrate the suspicious circumstances that can surround the execution of a will.
• The Court also considered Naranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao [(2006) 13 SCC 433]*, which discussed circumstances that raise suspicion, such as doubts about the testator’s mental state.
• The Court relied on Anil Kak v. Sharada Raje [(2008) 7 SCC 695]* to reiterate that the court must adopt a rational approach and satisfy its conscience before accepting a will.
• The Court referred to Leela Rajagopal and others v. Kamala Menon Cocharan and others [(2014) 15 SCC 570]* to emphasize that the court must assess the cumulative effect of unusual features and suspicious circumstances when determining the validity of a will.
• The Court cited Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs [(2001) 3 SCC 179]* to emphasize the principles that an appellate court must follow while reversing the findings of a trial court.
• The Court also relied on B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy [(2010) 13 SCC 530]* to underscore the duty of the appellate court to deal with all issues and evidence while recording findings.
• The Court considered Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar [(2015) 1 SCC 391]* to emphasize the scope and powers of the first appellate court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The Court noted that the testator was sick and weak at the time of the will’s execution, and the will was not disclosed for fifteen years. The Court also found discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and noted that the signature on the will did not match the testator’s known signatures. The court emphasized that the propounder of the will, i.e. the plaintiffs, failed to remove these suspicious circumstances.

The Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual analysis focused on the circumstances surrounding the will’s execution, while the legal interpretation centered on the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court found that the High Court had not provided sufficient reasoning for reversing the Trial Court’s decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that when an appellate court reverses a trial court’s decision, it must provide detailed reasons for doing so.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view that the will was valid, emphasizing the importance of removing all suspicious circumstances when a will is contested. The Court noted that the testator was sick and weak at the time of the will’s execution, and the will was not disclosed for fifteen years. The Court also found discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and noted that the signature on the will did not match the testator’s known signatures. The Court concluded that the propounders of the will had failed to prove its validity.

The Court stated, “The very execution of the will is suspicious and therefore the learned Trial Judge had rightly dismissed the suit of the respondents herein.”

The Court also observed, “It is observed that the will (Ex-P1) did not come into existence at the instance of the testator but it is a concocted document and has been got up after the demise of S. Damodaran.”

The Court highlighted, “The Appellate Court being the Division Bench has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and has decreed the suit. On extracting the relevant portions of the judgment of the Appellate Court, which consists of eleven paragraphs, it is found that the same has been written in a cryptic manner.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The propounder of a will must prove its validity beyond reasonable doubt, especially when there are suspicious circumstances.
• Suspicious circumstances include the testator’s health, the timing of the will’s execution, discrepancies in signatures, and the delay in disclosing the will.
• An appellate court must provide detailed reasons for reversing a trial court’s decision, particularly when it involves findings of fact.
• The court’s conscience must be satisfied that the will was duly executed, particularly when there are doubts about the testator’s mental state.
• The evidence of attesting witnesses must be credible and consistent.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit for Letters of Administration. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden is on the propounder to remove those circumstances with cogent evidence. This case reinforces the established legal principles regarding the proof of wills and the duty of appellate courts to provide detailed reasoning when reversing trial court decisions. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the case provides a clear application of these principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy vs. Saradambal underscores the importance of proving the validity of a will, especially when suspicious circumstances are present. The Court emphasized that the propounder of a will must remove all doubts and satisfy the court’s conscience that the will was duly executed by a testator with a sound mind. The judgment also highlights the duty of appellate courts to provide detailed reasoning when reversing trial court decisions. The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, rejecting the will and denying Letters of Administration to the plaintiffs.