Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a daughter’s declaration of rights under her father’s registered 1980 will. The original was shown to be with another defendant, explaining use of a certified copy; her evidence and one attesting witness sufficiently proved the will. The bequest to the testator’s then-minor children was natural on the facts. The later will and compromise decree did not bind her, and she had not been a party to that compromise. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff proved the earlier will through the certified copy and attesting testimony, and whether the later compromise bound her.
Held
- The registered will’s original was not in the plaintiff’s possession but with defendant No. 1. The accepted explanation justified secondary evidence through a Registrar-certified copy. Her testimony and examination of an attesting witness met the Section 68 requirement on this record. Registration alone was not treated as replacing proof. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The father’s bequest to his then-minor children was natural, and their ages negated the alleged active manipulation in execution. In assessing the competing instruments the Court also noted that the later will made no reference to revocation of the registered earlier will. These were the reasons given on the particular evidence. (¶ 17)
- The plaintiff had not participated in the earlier compromise suit, so its decree did not bind her. Once the 1980 will was proved, she was entitled to ownership declaration for the properties bequeathed to her; the later will and decree were held non-binding on her. (¶¶ 9, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s decree declaring the plaintiff’s rights under the proved 1980 will upheld. Later will and compromise decree held non-binding on her.