Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. It is settled position of law that the probate court is not requ ired to go into the question of title of the testator. The probate court is requ ired to scrutinise as to whether the Will was legally and validly executed as re…
- Para 1515. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed.
Judgment
This appeal by the objector is directed against the order dated 23.5.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 18(P)/2000 granti ng the probate of the Will (Ext. 1) executed by the testator, namely Toramai Raj khowa, on 14.9.1994. 2. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for probate of the Will left by Toramai Rajkhowa , wife of late Santiram Rajkhowa, the mother of the respondent as well as the ap pellant, contending inter alia that she executed the Will on 14.9.1994 bequeathi ng her property in favour of the respondent, which was duly executed in presence of the attesting witnesses, and was her last Will. The said proceeding was init ially instituted in the court of the learned District Judge, Nagaon and accordin gly case No. Misc. (P)57/1999 was registered. On transfer to the court of learne d Addl. District Judge it was registered and renumbered as Title Suit No. 18(P)/ 2000. The said proceeding was contested by the present appellant by filing writt en objection contending inter alia that Toramai never executed any will, that th e alleged Will is forged, that the alleged Will was not duly executed and attest ed as required by law, that the same is not registered and that Toramai had no r ight to execute the Will or to transfer the land. It has also been pleaded that Toramai was an illiterate woman and she had no idea how to execute a Will which has been created by the propounder/respondent to derive undue benefit. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed f
or determination: - (cid:28)1. 2. 3.
Whether there is cause of action for this petition? Whether the Will was duly executed by the testator? Whether the petitioner was appointed as Executor of the Will? To what relief the parties are entitled to? (cid:29)
4. The respondent, who is the propounder of the Will, and the appel lant who objected to such prayer for grant of probate, examined three witnesses each. The respondent also proved the Will, which was marked as Ext.1. The appell ant objector has also proved the document being the village bichar marked as Ext . ’ka’. The Probate court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has grant ed the probate of the said Will by holding that the propounder could prove due e xecution of the Will and there was no suspicious circumstances surrounding its e xecution. Hence the present appeal by the objector.
I have heard Ms Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Borkotoky, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that ex 6. ecution of the Will being not free from suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove such suspicion, which the propounder having failed to do, the probate court ought not to have granted the probate of the Will (Ext. 1) . It has been submitted that it is evident from the deposition of the witnesses of the parties that the testatrix was in complete control of the beneficiary, wh o is the propounder, and as such she was influenced by the propounder to execute the Will. According to the learned counsel the testatrix, therefore, did not ex ecute the Will out of her free mind and will. The learned counsel further submit s that the propounder of the Will took active interest in execution of the Will in as much as she procured the stamp papers on which the Will was written and in the absence of any near relatives.
The learned counsel further submits that the testatrix being an educated women who put her signature in the bicharnama (Ext. 1), only thumb impression allegedly of the testatrix is found in the Will (Ext. 1) without there being any explanation in that regard. The learned counsel relat ing to the explanation given in the Will (Ext. 1) has also submitted that it is evident from the deposition of PW 2 that such explanation was not there when PW 3, as one of the attesting witnesses, puts his signature in presence of the test atrix. All these facts, according to the learned counsel are suspicious circumst ances surrounding the execution of the Will and the propounder has miserably fai led to remove the said suspicion. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the 7. order passed by the probate court granting probate has submitted that the object or in his deposition has admitted that during the lifetime of their mother he di d not live with her and he was living separately.
According to the learned couns el this witness has also admitted that the mother was living with Sabitri Rajkho wa, who is the propounder of the Will. It has also been submitted that procuring of the deed on which the Will was written and the presence of the propounder at the time of execution of the Will would not constitute suspicious circumstances more so when there is evidence on record that the mother was living with the pr opounder and the objector did not look after her. It has also been submitted tha t in a probate proceeding due execution of the Will is required to be proved i.e . whether it was out of the testator’s free will and whether the testator was in a sound disposition of mind, which the learned counsel submits that the propoun der could prove by adducing cogent evidence. It has also been submitted that whe ther the testator has right to transfer the bequeathed property does not arise i n a probate proceeding except to prove due execution as required by law. Accordi ng to the learned counsel the propounder by examining the scribe as well as one of the attesting witnesses could prove due execution of the Will and as such the order passed by the probate court needs no interference.
l for the parties also perused the evidences on record. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counse
The respondent in support of the claim for probate of the Will e xamined three witnesses namely the respondent herself as PW 1, Sri Mahesh Goswam i, the scribe of the Will as PW 2 and one of the attesting witnesses namely Hem Chandra Das as PW 3, apart from proving the Will which has been marked as Ext. A s noticed above, the appellant objector has also examined himself DW 1, Prabin K r. Saikia as DW 2 and Bonomali Kalita as DW 3. The objector has also proved the proceeding in the village Bichar as Ext. ’ka’.
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides how an unprivil eged Will is to be executed. It requires the testator to sign or affix his marks to the Will, or signed by some other person in his presence and by his directio n. The signature or marks of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him is required to be so placed that it will appear that it was intended th ereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. The Will is also required to be a ttested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator sign or affi x his marks to the Will or has seen some other persons sign the will, in the pre sence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or of the signature of such ot her persons. It is also the requirement that for due execution of the Will each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in presence of the testator, but it shall n ot be necessary that more than one witnesses shall be present at the same time. There is, however, no particular form of attestation. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides how the exe 11. cution of a document required by law to be attested is to be proved. It provides that if a document requires by law to be attested it shall not be used as evide nce unless one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of pro ving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the pr ocess of the court and capable of giving evidence. However such attesting witnes s is not required to be called in proof of execution of any document not being t he will which has been registered in accordance with the provision of the Indian Registration Act unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. Hence to prove due execution of the Will, which is required be attested at least by two attesting witnesses in view of th e Indian Succession Act, at least one attesting witness is to be examined, provi ded such attesting witness is alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
It is settled position of law that the probate court is not requ ired to go into the question of title of the testator. The probate court is requ ired to scrutinise as to whether the Will was legally and validly executed as re quired by law. It is also the settled position of law that if there are suspicio us circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the burden is on the pro pounder of the Will to remove such suspicion. The conscience of the court must b e satisfied before granting the probate of the Will that the Will in question wa s not only duly executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Su ccession Act but also that the said Will was the product of pure volition of the testator who had voluntarily executed after knowing and understanding the conte nts of the Will and its consequences. In the instant case, the propounder of the Will (Ext.1) apart fr 13. om examining herself has examined the scribe of the Will and one of the attestin g witnesses, to prove its due execution.
PW 2, the scribe of the Will, has prove d the thumb impression of the testatrix and also the signature of the attesting witnesses apart from his own signature. He has further deposed that the testatri x was in good health and mind and understood the contents of the Will when read over. The attesting witnesses, PW 3, has also deposed that the testatrix put her signature in presence of the attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses al so put their signatures in presence of the testatrix. He has further deposed tha t the contents of the Will were read over and thereafter the testatrix put her t humb impression. PW 1 during reexamination has clarified as to why the testatrix put her thumb impression though she was literate and put her signature in Ext. ’ka’. PW 1 though in her examination in chief has stated that the testatrix was illiterate, that would not amount to suspicious circumstances surrounding the ex ecution of the Will, when the PW 1 during her reexamination has clarified why sh e put her thumb impression.
That apart according to the objector himself the tes tatrix was a literate lady. It is also in evidence of the PWs, which has been al so corroborated by DW 1 in his deposition that the testatrix during her lifetime stayed with the propounder, who is the daughter and the objector was staying se parately. From such evidence it is therefore evident that it was the propounder who took care of the testatrix, who out of love and affection bequeathed the pro perty in favour of the propounder. It is quite natural that the testatrix, who i s admittedly an old lady, had to depend on her daughter for purchase of the deed and also for accompanying her at the time of execution of the Will. Purchase of the deed and accompanying the testatrix, in view of the above, would not consti tute suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
The explanation found in the Will (Ext. 1), according to PW 3 wa s not written when he put his signature as the attesting witness. It appears tha t the said note was appended in the bottom of the Will indicating the minor corr ections made therein, which in any case does not alter the wishes of the testatr ix to bequeath the property in favour of the propounder.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed.
The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — ss. 63, 276; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 68; Registration Act, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 09 Nov 2012. The bench was B P KATAKEY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.