Supreme Court Upholds Will Despite Challenges: Thangam vs. Navamani Ammal (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 164

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a will be deemed invalid if the testator’s family members are not explicitly mentioned, or if there are minor discrepancies in witness testimonies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the validity of a registered will. The core issue revolved around whether the will executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favor of Navamani Ammal was genuine, despite claims of suspicious circumstances by the testator’s family. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case centers on a will dated October 9, 1984, executed by Palaniandi Udyar, who bequeathed approximately 3.5 acres of land to Navamani Ammal, stated to be his brother’s daughter. Palaniandi Udyar was married to Thangam (Appellant No. 1), and they had a daughter, Laila (Appellant No. 2). Palaniandi Udyar had two previous wives who had passed away without bearing any children. The will was challenged by Thangam and Laila, who claimed that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The suit property was valued at approximately ₹16,000 at the time.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Navamani Ammal, filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which was initially decreed by the Trial Court, which found the will to be genuine. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, siding with the appellants (Thangam and Laila). The High Court of Judicature at Madras then set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s decree, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of evidence related to the execution of a will. The court examines the testimonies of the scribe, attesting witnesses, and other witnesses to determine if the will was executed under suspicious circumstances. The judgment also refers to Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which pertain to the specific admission and denial of pleadings in a plaint.

Order VIII Rule 3 of the CPC states:

“Denial to be specific. It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but he must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.”

Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC states:

“Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Thangam and Laila):

• The execution of the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and should be discarded.
• The First Appellate Court’s findings of fact were erroneously reversed by the High Court.
• There were discrepancies in the statements of the scribe and attesting witnesses.
• The testator’s health was poor, and he was not in a position to understand the contents of the will.
• There were differences in the thumb impressions of the testator on the will and the register at the Sub-Registrar’s office.
• The will did not mention the testator’s widow and minor daughter, and their interests were not taken care of.
• The appellants were in possession of the suit property.

Arguments by the Respondent (Navamani Ammal):

• The testator wished to bequeath a part of his property to the respondent, who was like a daughter to him.
• The respondent was taking care of the testator’s health, as he was suffering from asthma and chronic cough.
• The respondent was in possession of the suit property after the testator’s death.
• The appellants did not take care of the testator’s health or the property after his death.
• The appellants did not specifically deny the claims in the plaint.
• The respondent’s possession was disturbed by the appellants, leading to the suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances because the testator did not mention his widow and minor daughter and bequeathed a part of his property to the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co [AIR 1964 SC 538] – The Supreme Court referred to this case while discussing the importance of specific admission and denial of pleadings as per Order VIII Rules 3 to 5 of the CPC. The court in this case opined that the rules form an integrated code dealing with the manner in which the allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed.
• Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar [(1993) 4 SCC 6] – This case was cited to reiterate the position of law regarding specific denial of pleadings, emphasizing that any allegation of fact must be denied specifically or by necessary implication.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – These provisions were discussed in detail regarding the importance of specific denial of pleadings and the consequences of not doing so.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co [AIR 1964 SC 538]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of specific denial of pleadings as per Order VIII Rules 3 to 5 of the CPC.
• Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar [(1993) 4 SCC 6]: The Court reiterated the position of law regarding specific denial of pleadings, emphasizing that any allegation of fact must be denied specifically or by necessary implication.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the evidence presented regarding the testator’s state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The testator was in good senses and understood his actions.
• The scribe and one of the attesting witnesses corroborated the execution of the will.
• The testator was conscious of the welfare of his widow and minor daughter, as he had left sufficient property for them.
• The appellants did not specifically deny the claims in the plaint, as required by Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC.

The court’s reasoning was that the factual aspects of the case, such as the testator’s mental state and the witness testimonies, played a more significant role in the decision. The legal aspects, such as the rules of pleading, were also considered but were secondary to the factual analysis.

The Court also observed the manner in which pleadings are filed in the Trial Courts and High Courts, emphasizing the need for specific para-wise replies to the plaint. The Court noted that a general or evasive denial is not sufficient and that the written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint, as stated in Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC. The Court stated, “In the absence of para -wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.” The Court also stated, “The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para -wise.” The Court further stated, “If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.”

Key Takeaways

• A will can be upheld even if it does not explicitly mention all family members, as long as their interests are taken care of.
• Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies may not invalidate a will if the core aspects of its execution are corroborated.
• The health of the testator is a factor, but it must be shown that the testator was not in a position to understand the contents of the will for it to be invalidated.
• Specific denials of allegations in the plaint are crucial in civil suits, as general denials may be deemed as admissions.
• The court will consider the evidence of the scribe and attesting witnesses to determine the genuineness of a will.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a will can be considered valid even if it does not explicitly mention all family members, provided their interests are taken care of and there is sufficient evidence of the testator’s intention. The court also emphasized the importance of specific denials of pleadings in civil suits. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts will look at the substance of the evidence and the overall circumstances surrounding the execution of a will rather than focusing on minor discrepancies. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the will executed by Palaniandi Udyar was valid. The court found no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will and emphasized that the testator was in good senses and had taken care of his family’s interests. The judgment also highlighted the importance of specific denials in pleadings as per Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC.

Category

Parent Category: Testamentary Succession

Child Category: Validity of Will

Child Category: Suspicious Circumstances

Child Category: Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order VIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order VIII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

FAQ

Q: What makes a will valid in India?

A: A will is valid if it is made by a person of sound mind, is properly signed by the testator, and is attested by at least two witnesses. The will should clearly state the testator’s intentions regarding the distribution of their property.

Q: Can a will be challenged if it doesn’t mention all family members?

A: Yes, a will can be challenged if it doesn’t mention all family members, but it will not be invalidated if the court finds that the testator had taken care of their interests.

Q: What are suspicious circumstances in the context of a will?

A: Suspicious circumstances include situations where the testator’s mental capacity is in doubt, the will is executed under undue influence, or there are discrepancies in the witness testimonies.

Q: What is the importance of specific denials in pleadings in a civil suit?

A: Specific denials are crucial because a general or evasive denial is not sufficient. If an allegation in the plaint is not specifically denied, it may be deemed as admitted by the court.

Q: What happens if there are minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses to a will?

A: Minor discrepancies may not invalidate a will if the core aspects of its execution are corroborated by the witnesses. The court will look at the overall circumstances and the substance of the evidence.