Historical decision of Supreme Court in the matter of will, The Supreme Court has held that improper distribution of property.

Supreme court of india

In this case, the trial court and the High Court held that the ambiguous suspicious circumstances relating to the disputed will during the litigation of probation effectively distributed by a woman based on her mother's will were as follows: -

(A) The woman (petitioner), who was the main beneficiary, had played an active role in the execution of the disputed will and concealed the fact from the court, 
(B) The process of the execution of the will by the bequest woman to her only son and second daughter absolutely no reason to be set aside was given,
(C) There was no clarity about the construction to be done by him,
(D) The manner of writing and execution of the will with the use of technical and legal terms is very doubtful was, and
(E) The attestation of witnesses was unreliable and there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses.

In the appeal, Justice A.M. A division bench of M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held that the circumstances laid down by the trial court and the High Court cannot act against the validity of the will undergoing the probate process by itself and alone.

The banch said that the consideration of the quality and nature of each of these facts and then the joint effect and effect of all of them on the will made by the will will be relevant. In other words, no single cause can be conclusive.

But if, after considering all the facts together, the conscience of the court is not satisfied that the disputed will truly represents the last will and promise of the will, then the will the court cannot approve, and put it another way, if considering the overall facts of the case, the court seems satisfied that the document proposed as a will is actually in the final will of the testator is consistent and it is executed within the scope of the law, then the will cannot be disallowed only for a suspicious circumstance or other factor.

The court then considered each of these situations in detail. During this time he came to know that the will was disproportionate distribution of property, under which he had given a larger share of the property to another daughter than his only son and needy widowed daughter.

The court stated that normally and naturally, a person is expected to have a greater inclination towards the child he serves and it seems so unrealistic to believe that a 'loved one' has special love and affection for the child. The reason is that someone will leave a serving and needy child in the limelight. As it is felt, improper division of property or non-justifiable execution of legal heirs, especially dependents, comes under the category of doubtful condition.

The Court also said that no such reason was given as to why the will testified that it was appropriate to leave his widow waiting in a swirl of uncertainly. The court said that no evidence was also given on the pleas of the bequest woman having a bitter relationship with her son. The court stated that there are two other factors to this vaguely uneven distribution of property: first, the active role of the appellant in the will execution process and second, the virtual execution of the testator's other children in the process.

The disputed testament was claimed to be a holographic will, where the first and last pass is written by the hand of the will of the person and the property of the bequest. But the court said that the entire will will be electronically printed, except for the opening and end pieces, and thus it does not directly come under the description of the holographic will.

The Court also considered other circumstances and concluded that the disputed will was subjected to various suspicious circumstances, which were of significant but unclear nature. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and a fine of Rs 50,000 was also imposed on the appellant.

Author :- Advocate Lokendra Rana 

Thank You

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner