← Previous Page
Supreme Court Upholds Lower Courts' Decisions on Will Dispute, Emphasizing Importance of Clear Evidence in Proving Will Genuineness.

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Courts' Decisions on Will Dispute, Emphasizing Importance of Clear Evidence in Proving Will Genuineness.

By: Adv Syed Yousuf
Share on:

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the lower court's rulings on a disputed Unregistered Will Deed, highlighting the significance of proving a testator's understanding and free will in executing the document, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Leela & Ors VS Muruganantham & Ors, addressing a property dispute stemming from the inheritance of assets following the death of Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, dismissed the appeal over the execution of the will and genuiness. The dispute centered around the validity of an unregistered will dated 06.04.1990, purportedly executed by Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, and the distribution of his estate among his family members.

Case Background: Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar had two wives: Rajammal, his first wife, and Leela, his second wife. Through Rajammal, he had three sons and a daughter, while Leela bore him two sons. Prior to his death, Balasubramaniya instituted a partition suit (O.S. No.504/1986) against his first wife and their children. The suit was ultimately settled through a partition deed dated 04.12.1989, dividing his properties into four schedules. The first schedule was allotted to himself, the second schedule to his sons from his first marriage, the third schedule to his first wife, and the fourth schedule to his daughter from his first marriage.

After Balasubramaniya’s death in 1991, his sons from his first marriage filed a partition suit (O.S. No.142/1992) seeking their share (5/7th) of the properties allotted to their father in the first schedule of the 1989 partition deed. Leela and her sons contested the claim, asserting their entitlement based on the unregistered will dated 06.04.1990.

The Trial Court ruled against Leela and her sons, upholding the claims of Balasubramaniya’s sons from his first marriage and the High Court upheld the judgment of the Trail Court. Both the Court declined to accept the will, citing suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The courts found that the will was not genuine and was not worthy of being acted upon.

When Leela and her sons appealed to the Supreme Court, the Apex Court also upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by Leela and her sons based on the meticulously examined evidences and arguments presented before the Courts and focusing on the genuineness of the will and the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

The Apex Court reiterated the legal principles governing the proof of wills, emphasizing that mere proof of execution does not guarantee its genuineness. The court emphasized that the propounder of the will bears the burden of establishing that the testator signed the will while possessing a sound disposing state of mind, understood the nature and effect of the dispositions, and acted freely.

The court meticulously analyzed several suspicious circumstances surrounding the will:

The active role played by Leela, a beneficiary of the will, in its execution despite her denial of involvement.

The contradictory statements regarding the testator's health in the will and Leela's testimony.

The discrepancy between the testator's signature on the partition deed and the will.

The non-examination of the typist and the scribe of the will.

The ambiguity surrounding the place of execution of the will.

The lack of evidence confirming the testator's understanding of the will's contents before signing it.

Based on these suspicious circumstances, the court held that the execution of the will had not been satisfactorily proven, and the defendants (Leela and her sons) failed to establish that the testator had signed the will with a clear understanding of its content.

The court, therefore, dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the will's invalidity. The court's decision underscores the importance of clear and convincing evidence in proving the genuineness and validity of wills, particularly when suspicious circumstances are present.

Coram: Justice C. T. Ravikumar, and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Between: Leela & Ors VS Muruganantham & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 02-01-2025

Comments

Visitor No. 366419