Summary
The Supreme Court restored probate of a mother’s will, holding that the High Court’s supposed suspicious circumstances lacked an evidentiary foundation. Execution and capacity were proved, the evidence showed that she read and understood the will, and the beneficiaries’ presence, non-examination of the drafting advocate and unequal dispositions did not undermine it on this record.
Issues
- Whether the will was duly proved and the circumstances relied on by the High Court justified rejecting it.
- How the evidentiary burden shifts when a contestant alleges suspicious circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925The evidence established the statutory requirements for execution and attestation of the will; speculative suspicions did not displace that proof. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20)
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Examination of an attesting witness satisfied the evidentiary requirement on the facts; examination of the advocate who drafted the will was not independently mandatory. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 17, 18)
Held
- The propounder must first prove execution in the prescribed manner and prima facie testamentary competence. A contestant must then specifically raise and prima facie establish well-founded suspicious circumstances to shift the onus back. Absence of pleading does not compel acceptance where a suspicious feature is inherent in the document itself. (¶¶ 8, 10, 15, 16)
- The attesting witness’s evidence that the testatrix read and signed the will, corroborated by another witness, was not shaken. Her education and activities supported understanding; arthritis alone did not establish inability to comprehend. The objector’s unproved assertion of a later revocation also undercut his challenge to capacity when the earlier will was executed. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17)
- Mere presence of an executor or beneficiary does not itself invalidate a will or establish suspicious participation. On this evidence, non-examination of the drafting advocate was no reason to discard a will proved through an attesting witness. (¶ 18)
- The parties had acted on the will, and the objector admitted accepting a benefit. Earlier family distributions explained the differing provision for the children. A will ordinarily alters natural succession; the exclusions in this case did not justify the High Court’s unfounded suspicions. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside and the trial court’s decree granting probate restored and confirmed. Pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.