Summary
The Court restored concurrent findings that the asserted will was not proved. The High Court had framed a supposed substantial question by assuming due execution and then undertaken an impermissible factual reassessment in second appeal. Mechanical recitation of execution and attestation requirements could not substitute for reliable proof. The decision did not finally resolve competing succession claims against the State’s asserted escheat; the alleged heirs retained liberty to pursue an appropriate independent action.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent rejection of the will through factual reassessment in second appeal.
- Whether the State’s escheat claim and the alleged heirs’ competing rights could be finally decided in this appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court could not formulate a factual issue as a substantial legal question by assuming the very execution that the fact-finding courts had rejected. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925Compliance with execution and attestation requirements required reliable evidence rather than mechanical formal satisfaction. (¶ 7)
Held
- The trial and first appellate courts disbelieved the scribe and attesting witnesses. The thumb impression had not been matched and the witnesses differed about the place of execution. The Court found no perversity warranting interference with those concurrent factual conclusions. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 8)
- The High Court’s admission question assumed that the will was proved under Section 63 and then reopened the evidence. Reliable proof of the statutory requirements remained necessary; the detailed factual inquiry undertaken was outside Section 100 in this case. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The alleged heirs’ independent claim against the State’s escheat position would require fresh evidence and raised a dispute not adjudicated in the original suit. The Court left them free to bring an appropriate action and did not finally determine that competing claim. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
State appeal allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside and the trial and first appellate judgments restored, with liberty for the alleged heirs to pursue their independent claim according to law; no costs.