Supreme Court Upholds Will of Shyama Sundari Dassi: Pasupati Nath Das vs. Chanchal Kumar Das (25 September 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 818
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a will be considered valid if there are questions about the testator’s mental state or if there are claims of undue influence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a dispute over the wills of a husband and wife. This case highlights the importance of proving the genuineness of a will and the mental capacity of the person making it. The Court’s decision clarifies the scope of probate proceedings, emphasizing that such proceedings are primarily concerned with the validity of the will itself, not the title to the property. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the properties of Nandlal Das and his wife, Shyama Sundari Dassi. Nandlal Das had two sons, Kanailal Das and Pasupati Nath Das. On April 12, 1963, Nandlal Das executed a will dividing his properties. Parts I and II of the will’s schedule were allocated to the family deity, making them trust properties, while Part III properties were to be distributed as per the will.

Nandlal Das passed away on December 1, 1964. Kanailal Das died childless on March 7, 1966, leaving behind his widow, Purnima Rani Dassi. Pasupati Nath Das, the other son, applied for probate of his father’s will on June 3, 1967. This application was contested by Shyama Sundari Dassi and Purnima Rani Dassi, who claimed that the will had been revoked by a subsequent deed on October 15, 1963.

Shyama Sundari Dassi executed her own will on October 12, 1973. In this will, she stated that she did not want her younger son, Pasupati Nath Das, to inherit her estate. She claimed that her husband had cancelled his earlier will due to dissatisfaction with Pasupati’s behavior. She asserted that the properties listed in her will were her own and appointed Harendra Nath Das as the executor, with Menoka Rani Dasi, her brother’s wife, to inherit equal shares of the property after her death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the application for probate of Nandlal Das’s will was contested, leading to a testamentary suit. The Single Judge of the High Court granted probate of Nandlal Das’s will in favor of Pasupati Nath Das on September 19, 1975. This decision was appealed by Harendra Nath Das, but the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on October 14, 1982.

Subsequently, Harendra Nath Das and Menoka Rani Dassi sought probate of Shyama Sundari Dassi’s will. This was also contested by Pasupati Nath Das, resulting in another testamentary suit. The Single Judge dismissed this suit on February 27, 1984, finding that while the will was duly executed and attested, the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and was under undue influence. This decision was appealed to the Division Bench.

The Division Bench, on February 4, 2005, allowed the appeal, reversing the Single Judge’s decision. The Division Bench held that there were no suspicious circumstances and that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time of executing the will. This decision of the Division Bench was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized that the scope of probate proceedings is limited to determining the genuineness of the will. The Court cited the decision in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Others, [(2008) 4 SCC 300], to highlight this point. The Court observed that probate proceedings do not deal with the law of inheritance or succession, nor do they address questions of title.

The Court quoted from the Krishna Kumar Birla case, stating:

“The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the will. A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the ( sic probate) proceedings. Construction of a will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court.”

The Court also referred to Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, [(1990) 3 SCC 333] to reiterate that a probate court would not decide any dispute with regard to title. The Court clarified that if a probate is granted, there are other remedies available to challenge the same under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Arguments

The appellant, Pasupati Nath Das, argued that under Nandlal Das’s will, properties in Parts I and II were designated for charity, while those in Part III were given absolutely to his sons, with Shyama Sundari Dassi only having a life estate and right to maintenance. Therefore, Shyama Sundari Dassi could not have legally disposed of the properties she inherited from her husband through her own will.

The respondents, the legal heirs of Harendra Nath Das, contended that a comparison of the properties listed in the respective schedules of the wills would show that Shyama Sundari Dassi owned various properties in her individual capacity. They argued that she was fully entitled to dispose of these properties through her will.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court limited its consideration to the following issue:

✓ Whether the execution of the Will of which Probate is prayed for has been satisfactorily proved and whether there are any suspicious circumstances impinging upon the execution of the Will.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, confirming the grant of probate for Shyama Sundari Dassi’s will. The court emphasized that its role in probate proceedings is limited to assessing the genuineness of the will and whether there are any suspicious circumstances. The Court did not delve into the issue of title or ownership of the properties.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Others [(2008) 4 SCC 300]* was relied upon to emphasize that the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited to considering the genuineness of the will and does not extend to deciding questions of title.

✓ Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera [(1990) 3 SCC 333]* was cited to reiterate that a probate court would not decide any dispute with regard to title.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principle that probate proceedings are concerned with the genuineness of the will and not the title of the property. The Court focused on whether the execution of the will was properly proved and if there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The Court also considered the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court which had concluded that the testatrix was of sound mind and that there was no undue influence. This led the Court to uphold the will of Shyama Sundari Dassi.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case. The court relied heavily on the principle that probate proceedings are limited in scope and do not extend to deciding questions of title.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Probate proceedings are limited to determining the genuineness of a will and do not extend to deciding questions of title or ownership of property.
• ✓ The mental capacity of the testator at the time of executing the will is a crucial factor for determining the validity of the will.
• ✓ If there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, it is likely to be upheld.
• ✓ Issues of title and ownership of properties must be decided in separate proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than confirming the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that probate proceedings are limited to determining the genuineness of the will and do not extend to deciding questions of title or ownership of property. This reaffirms the existing position of law that probate courts should not delve into matters of title.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench’s decision to grant probate of Shyama Sundari Dassi’s will. The Court reiterated that probate proceedings are primarily concerned with the genuineness of the will and the testamentary capacity of the testator, and do not address issues of property ownership.