Summary
A registered Will by which a testator left his land to his nephew while remaining wholly silent about the existence of his wife, with whom he lived till his death, and the reasons for her disinheritance was held vitiated by the propounder's undue influence; proof of execution and registration do not dispel such a suspicious circumstance, which must be assessed cumulatively with the attendant facts, including the propounder's own denial of the widow's marital status.
Issues
- Whether non-mention of the testator's wife and of the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will was a suspicious circumstance showing absence of a free disposing mind, rendering the Will invalid.
- Whether proof of the testator's signature and registration of the Will suffice to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
Provisions considered
- Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925A Will must be attested; its proof, like any other document, is subject to this requirement, but the propounder must further dispel all suspicious circumstances casting doubt on the testator's free disposing mind. (¶ 11)
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872At least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution of a Will; here the scribe and an attesting witness were examined, but due execution alone does not establish genuineness where suspicious circumstances remain unexplained. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The onus on the propounder of a Will is not only to prove due execution under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act but to dispel all suspicious circumstances and satisfy the conscience of the court that the testator executed it of his own free volition; when suspicious circumstances exist and are not repelled, the court is not justified in holding the Will genuine merely because the signatures are proved and the Will is registered. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Not every circumstance is suspicious; a circumstance is suspicious when it is not normal or not expected of a normal person, and the court must adopt reasonable scepticism rather than fantasies of a doubting mind. Deprivation of a natural heir by itself may not be suspicious, but prudence requires a reason for denying inheritance to natural heirs and its absence shrouds the disposition with suspicion; unusual features call for close scrutiny and an overall, cumulative assessment rather than examination of any single feature in isolation. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18)
- Where the propounder not only set up the Will but denied the very status of the first respondent as the testator's wife, the Will was cryptic and wholly silent about her existence or the reason for her exclusion, the evidence showed she lived with the testator till his death and he had nominated her for his pension, and nothing showed bitter relations, the erasure of her marital status bore the insignia of the propounder rather than the testator; the cumulative circumstances raised serious doubt that the Will reflected the testator's free will and showed it was vitiated by the propounder's undue influence. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- A widow's non-performance of the last rites cannot be treated as an indicator of indifferent relations, since in a Hindu/Sikh family last rites are ordinarily performed by male sapinda relations; the Trial Court's contrary observation was erroneous. (¶ 19)
- Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram, where the disinherited wife admitted she had been ousted by her husband, is distinguishable; the explanation that the wife had been given the testator's money and pension was unconvincing, no evidence showing the quantum was reasonable enough to satisfy a prudent man about her complete exclusion. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment declaring the first respondent owner in possession of the suit land affirmed.