Summary
The High Court reversed probate of a mother’s and father’s wills on asserted suspicious circumstances, including exclusion of their daughter and delay in seeking probate. The Court rejected those inferences on the evidence: attestors and scribes were examined, the father attested the mother’s will and acknowledged it in his registered will, and the bequests explained the daughter’s exclusion. It restored probate of both wills, holding that courts do not test testamentary distribution for equal treatment among children.
Issues
- Whether the circumstances relied on by the High Court justified refusing probate of the two wills.
- Whether the daughter’s exclusion, probate timing and minor testimonial discrepancies established suspicion on this record.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaEquality review did not supply a test of fairness for the private testamentary distribution among the testators’ children. (¶ 25)
Held
- The father’s attestation of the mother’s will and express acknowledgment of it in his own registered will undermined the alleged fabrication and other asserted suspicious circumstances. The mother’s signature was not disputed. (¶ 17-21)
- The daughter’s exclusion was not by itself suspicious, particularly where the will explained the provision already made for her. Assessing genuine execution does not authorise a court to redistribute property according to its view of fairness among children. (¶¶ 17, 21, 25)
- On these facts, seeking probate when the later partition litigation arose did not establish suspicious delay. Minor differences concerning the time of execution or registration and the beneficiary’s lack of precise knowledge were given undue significance by the High Court. (¶ 22-24)
- The High Court lacked a basis to infer suspicious mental incapacity from unspecified ailments where the respondents had not asserted absence of a sound disposing mind. Its cumulative suspicion did not withstand the documentary and testimonial context. (¶¶ 21, 24-26)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the Principal District Court’s grant of probate of both wills restored. No costs.