Misc. Case No. 02 of 2010 · Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 148 of 2019 (An appeal under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act.) Sukanti Dash & Ors. Pradip Kumar Dash & Ors. -versus- …. …. Appellant (s) Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. alongwith with associates Smt. Sujata Jena, Adv. Mr. Debasis Panigrahi, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-19.06.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-18.07.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants are challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.8870 of 2018 (arising out of Probate Misc. Case No.02 of 2010), whereby their application for probate was dismissed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Appellants are the daughters-in-law of Late Jayakrishna Dash. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are his sons, and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are his daughters. Page 1 of 18 (ii) According to the Appellants, although Late Jayakrishna Dash was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 admitted to hospital on 21.02.2008, he remained in sound physical and mental health and, acting of his own volition, executed a registered Will bearing Registration No. 25 dated 23.02.2008, bequeathing his self- acquired properties to them out of love and affection. (iii) Late Jayakrishna Dash was discharged from the hospital on 26.02.2008 and passed away on 31.01.2009. (iv) Thereafter, the Appellants filed a probate petition bearing Test (Probate) Misc. Case No. 2 of 2010 before the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 11.01.2010. Upon contest, the matter was renumbered as C.S. No. 8870 of 2015 and transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar. (v) Respondent No. 5 appeared and opposed the grant of probate, alleging that the Will was forged and fabricated and not executed by Late Jayakrishna Dash. (vi) The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the probate case on the grounds that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances and that the testator lacked the competence to execute the Will in respect of the scheduled properties.
Legal Reasoning
(vii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Appellants have approached this Court challenging the same and seeking that it be set aside. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 2 of 18 (i) The Appellants contended that Late Jayakrishna Dash, while in sound physical and mental health and in possession of the scheduled properties, voluntarily executed and registered a Will dated 23.02.2008, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 bequeathing the same in their favour. (ii) The Appellants contended that Jayakrishna Dash was the recorded owner of the properties mentioned in the Schedule. The property under Khata No. 2024 of Mouza Goutam Nagar, Unit No. 28, Bhubaneswar, was a leasehold on which he had constructed a residential house and resided until his death. The property under Khata No. 1125/4 of Mouza Cuttack Sahar, Unit No. 15, Choudhury Bazaar, stood recorded jointly in his name pursuant to a judgment and decree in T.S. No. 222 of 1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack. He had been allotted a share therein and remained in possession until his demise. (iii) The Appellants contended that Jayakrishna Dash had also acquired additional properties during his lifetime, including land under Khata No. 583 of Mouza Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No. 31, Laxmisagar 2; House No. L-11 in Kapila Prasad under the staff housing scheme and a portion of land measuring 10 ft (cid:215) 20 ft in Plot No. 825 of Mouza Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar, which, although recorded in the name of his wife, Ketaki Devi, had been purchased out of his own income. (iv) The Appellants contended that the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe did not depose that Late Jayakrishna Dash was mentally unstable at the time of executing the Will. The scribe, in his deposition, specifically stated that the contents of the Will were read over to the Page 3 of 18 Testator, who then affixed his mark only after understanding its contents. (v) The Appellants contended that Section 63(a) of the Indian Succession Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 Act, 1925, does not mandate that a testator must sign the Will. The Senior Civil Judge, however, presumed that Jayakrishna Dash, being literate, ought to have signed instead of affixing his Left Thumb Impression, and on that basis held that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances. The Appellants argued that such reasoning is erroneous, as the mere absence of a signature does not invalidate a Will where the intention of the testator is clear and the Will is otherwise duly executed. (vi) The Appellants contended that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not require the registration of a Will. Despite this, the Senior Civil Judge framed and decided an issue on that aspect contrary to settled law. (vii) The Appellants submitted that the grant of probate is contingent upon proving that the document is the last Will of the testator, executed while of sound mind, and duly proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (viii) The Appellants contended that the endorsement on the Will by the Registering Authority itself demonstrates due execution and attestation, resulting in valid registration. A presumption of genuineness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, therefore applies. (ix) The Appellants contended that the Respondents did not take any clear stand regarding the testator’s mental condition in their written Page 4 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 statement, offering only vague and evasive denials. Although a medical report was later produced, it was neither referred to in the pleadings nor supported by any amendment. In the absence of such pleadings, the Respondents were not entitled to lead evidence on that aspect, and the Senior Civil Judge erred in relying upon it. (x) The Appellants contended that the treating doctor clearly stated that Jayakrishna Dash was mentally stable and not experiencing hallucinations at the time of execution of the Will on 23.02.2008. Nonetheless, the Senior Civil Judge placed undue reliance on a medical report dated 23.11.2017, obtained during the pendency of proceedings, which had diminished evidentiary value as a lis pendens document. (xi) The Appellants contended that the Senior Civil Judge, while deciding the probate application, ventured into the nature and character of the property as though adjudicating a title suit. Such an approach is impermissible since probate proceedings are limited in scope and distinct from title disputes, and must be decided with due regard to the last wishes of the testator. (xii) The Appellants contended that the impugned judgment violates Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. As per the said provision, where there is any contention or the District Delegate believes probate should not be granted by him, the petition along with all documents must be returned to the applicant for presentation before the District Judge. In the present case, Respondent No. 5 had raised a clear objection. The Senior Civil Judge, acting as a delegate, ought to have referred the matter to the District Judge. Failure to do so renders the impugned judgment procedurally flawed and liable to be set aside. Page 5 of 18 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Will refers to four lots of property, including two immovable properties described under Lot I. One is located in Mouza Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar, and the other in Mouza Cuttack Sahar, Unit No. 15, Choudhury Bazar. The Will does not specify the Khata numbers for either. The Goutam Nagar property is leasehold, held under a registered lease deed issued by the Government of Odisha, which under Clause (xiv) prohibits transfer or change of use without prior written consent from the lessor. Since "disposition" includes any transfer of property, the bequest of the leasehold without the lessor’s permission is not legally valid, rendering the Will ineffective to that extent. (ii) The property situated in Cuttack, as per the Records of Right, was not the absolute property of the Testator. In T.S. No. 222 of 1996, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack, decreed that the Testator was entitled to an area measuring Ac. 0.0193‰ as part of ancestral property. All Respondents, being Class-I legal heirs, have a legitimate share therein. Appellant No. 1, therefore, cannot claim exclusive rights over the Lot I (Ka) Schedule property, and the bequest made in its respect lacks legal sanctity. (iii) The property situated in Mouza Laxmisagar stood recorded in the name of Ketaki Dash, wife of the Testator, as per the Records of Right prepared by the Settlement Authority in 1988. Since the property stood in her name, all legal heirs, including the Testator, inherited equal Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 shares upon her death. The Testator had no authority to bequeath the entire property to Appellant No. 2. The Will, insofar as it relates to the Lot II (Kha) property, is not genuine, and no application for probate in respect of that portion is legally maintainable. (iv) The property in Mouza Bapuji Nagar, purchased by Ketaki Dash through a registered sale deed dated 14.04.1980, was acquired from her stridhan, as evident from the recitals. As the property remained solely in her name, it devolved equally upon all legal heirs, including the Testator, after her death. The Testator lacked the authority to exclusively bequeath the entire property to Appellant No. 3. Consequently, the claim for probate in respect of the Lot III (Ga) property is untenable, as the Will does not reflect a valid and lawful disposition. (v) The property at Mouza Kapila Prasad stood in the name of Ketaki Devi following a recorded transfer from Budhanath Rout, as confirmed by Letter No. 18322 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the Orissa State Housing Board. Upon her demise, all legal heirs, including the Testator, succeeded jointly. The Testator could not lawfully dispose of the entire property in favour of Appellant No. 4. As such, the bequest concerning Lot IV (Gha) lacks legal validity, and the claim for probate in relation thereto cannot be sustained. (vi) Jayakrishna Dash was admitted as an indoor patient at Neelanchal Hospital from 21.02.2008 to 26.02.2008. The Will was executed on 23.02.2008 and registered on 25.02.2008 during this period. Medical records indicate that he was suffering from Metabolic Encephalopathy, Lacunar Infarct in the Basal Ganglia, hypertension, and Parkinsonism, Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 all of which impair cognitive and neurological function. The treating physician deposed that the Testator exhibited altered sensorium prior to admission and was administered medication for epilepsy, hypertension, and prevention of cerebral clotting. (vii) The Will contains only a Left Thumb Impression, without proper attestation, and the impressions appear inconsistent across its pages. In view of the Testator’s medical condition at the relevant time and the manner of execution, the Will cannot be held to be genuine. The propounder failed to prove its validity to the satisfaction of the Court. (viii) The question of the Testator’s competence to bequeath the properties must be considered in light of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which permits disposition only of property over which a Hindu has exclusive right, title, and interest. Except for the property in Mouza Goutam Nagar, the other properties described in the Will form part of joint family property. In the absence of partition by metes and bounds, each co-sharer retains an undivided interest in every portion of such property. The Testator, having no exclusive ownership, was not legally entitled to bequeath those properties in entirety. (ix) P.W.1, Mamata Dash, admitted in cross-examination that only one of the four suit properties was self-acquired, one was ancestral, and the remaining properties stood in the name of Ketaki Devi. She could not recall key details regarding her father-in-law’s injury or the preparation of the Will. Specifically, she did not remember who instructed its drafting, who signed it, or who prepared the annexed sketch. She was unaware of the attesting witnesses and could not confirm whether the signature or Left Thumb Impression on the Will belonged to the Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 Testator. She also acknowledged that the Will did not refer to existing constructions on the suit properties. Notably, despite a certification by P.W.2, the Will bears no signature of Jayakrishna Dash. These admissions materially weaken the credibility of the Will and cast serious doubt on its due execution. (x) P.W.3 and P.W.4, the attesting witnesses to the Will, gave contradictory statements. P.W.4, Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty, stated in cross- examination that he visited Neelanchal Hospital on 23.02.2008 between 6.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. along with two others and found Jayakrishna Dash asleep with a plastered leg due to a fracture. He further stated that the Will was executed between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., and that on 25.02.2008, he again visited the hospital with the Sub-Registrar for registration. However, he could not say who wrote the presentation part of the Will or who signed on its reverse. Notably, the treating doctor made no mention of any leg fracture or plaster during the Testator’s hospitalization. This inconsistency between the attesting witness and the medical evidence casts serious doubt on the circumstances of execution and further undermines the credibility of the Will. (xi) P.W.3, Rabindra Kumar Sahu, stated that he went alone to Neelanchal Hospital on 23.02.2008 and found Jayakrishna Dash on the bed along with a few others. He claimed the contents of the Will were read over and that the Testator read it himself while leaning due to a leg injury. He admitted the Will mentions a signature, but in fact, the Testator affixed his Left Thumb Impression. Though Jayakrishna Dash was a government servant, the Will described him as a cultivator. P.W.3 could Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 not say where or on what basis the Will was prepared. These inconsistencies cast further doubt on the validity of the Will. IV. FINDINGS OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHUBANESWAR 5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar heard the parties and, upon consideration of their respective pleadings and the evidence adduced, framed the following issues for determination: i. Whether the suit is maintainable? ii. Whether there is no cause of action? iii. Whether Late Jayakrishna Dash executed Will No. 25/08 dated 23.02.2008 in a free state of mind and health? iv. Whether the said Will was executed and registered lawfully? v. Whether the said Will is a genuine document? vi. To what other reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled? 6. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar observed that Jayakrishna Dash was admitted to Neelanchal Hospital on 21.02.2008 and discharged on 26.02.2008. The Will was stated to have been executed on 23.02.2008 and registered on 25.02.2008, during his hospitalisation. The Court noted the absence of any explanation for the sudden execution and registration of the Will while the Testator was under medical care, and no material was produced to justify the timing or necessity of such action. 7. Relying on the testimony of D.W.1 and the medical records, the Court found that Jayakrishna Dash was suffering from advanced age-related ailments, including Parkinsonism and cognitive disorders, and concluded that he was not in a fit mental and physical state to comprehend or execute a Will. It further opined that the execution and Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 registration of the Will during hospitalisation appeared to be orchestrated by the sons and daughters-in-law of the Testator to exclude his daughters from succession. 8. It was further observed that the Will bore the Testator’s Left Thumb Impression rather than his signature, despite his being a literate person and a retired Class-I Government officer. The Will also inaccurately described him as a “cultivator” and referred to him as “Das” instead of “Dash.” While the Plaintiffs argued that these were inconsequential and permissible under Section 63(a) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Court held that the inconsistencies created a strong presumption of suspicious circumstances which remained unaddressed. On overall scrutiny, the Trial Court held that Will No. 25/08 dated 23.02.2008 was not executed in a free state of mind and could not be treated as a genuine testamentary instrument. In light of these findings, the Court held that the suit was not maintainable and that the Plaintiffs lacked cause of action to seek 9. 10. probate. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 11. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The central controversy in the present appeal arises from the dismissal of the probate petition filed by the Appellants, who claim to be the beneficiaries under a Will dated 23.02.2008 executed by one Late Jayakrishna Dash. The core question that arises for determination is whether the Senior Civil Judge rightly rejected the prayer for grant of probate by holding that the Will was executed under suspicious Page 11 of 18 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 circumstances, and whether such a finding warrants appellate intervention. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines a "Will" as the legal declaration of the intention of a testator concerning his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 empowers every person of sound mind, not being a minor, to dispose of his property by Will. Section 63 prescribes the manner of execution of unprivileged Wills. It mandates that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will, and that the same shall be attested by two or more witnesses. Furthermore, in terms of Section 61, a Will or any part thereof that is the result of fraud, coercion, or importunity that vitiates the free agency of the testator is void. It is well-established that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of the Will to establish its due and lawful execution. Moreover, where suspicious circumstances surround the creation of the Will, the onus shifts to the propounder to dispel these doubts and satisfy the Court’s conscience by providing clear and convincing evidence. 19. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma1, the Supreme Court comprehensively addressed key principles fundamental to determining the validity of a will. The following observations from the case are particularly relevant in this regard: “20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious 1 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31. Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder’s case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator’s mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator’s free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter. 21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word “conscience” in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive. 22. It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson [(1946) 50 CWN 895] “where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth”. It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect.” 20. Reference can also be made to the principles enunciated in Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur2 for dealing with a Will shrouded in suspicion, which are as follows: “9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court’s conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will.” 21. Turning to the specific facts of this case, it is essential to examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will dated 23.02.2008. 2 (1977) 1 SCC 369. Page 15 of 18 22. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 The Appellants claim that the Will was executed by the testator, Late Jayakrishna Dash, in sound physical and mental health and that he voluntarily bequeathed his properties to them. The Will was registered and executed in the presence of two witnesses. However, the Respondents raised objections, primarily questioning the testator’s mental capacity at the time of execution and alleging that the Will was forged. 23. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar, focused on several key factors, including the timing of the Will’s execution during the testator’s hospitalization, and the use of a Left Thumb Impression instead of a signature. The trial court noted these factors as contributing to suspicion surrounding the Will’s authenticity. 24. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the Will, particularly in the description of the testator’s profession as a “cultivator” rather than the more fitting “retired government officer,” and the use of the surname “Das” instead of his correct surname, “Dash.” These irregularities, coupled with the medical records indicating the testator’s health issues, led the Senior Civil Judge to conclude that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Upon reviewing the facts and material placed on record, this Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will raise serious concerns about the testator’s mental and physical state at the time of its execution. A perusal of the record reveals that the testator was hospitalized at Neelanchal Hospital from 21.02.2008 to 26.02.2008 due to health complications, including Metabolic Encephalopathy, Lacunar Infarct in Page 16 of 18 25. 26. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 the Basal Ganglia, Parkinsonism, and hypertension. These conditions significantly impaired his cognitive and neurological functions. While the mere fact of hospitalization does not automatically invalidate the Will, the timing of its execution, during a period of serious health challenges, raises doubts about the testator’s capacity to understand and voluntarily execute the Will. 27. Further, the use of a Left Thumb Impression instead of the testator’s signature raises significant concerns, especially given his established literacy and position as a retired Class-I government officer. Such a position, which would have required proficiency in signing official documents, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Will. This unusual method of execution, when coupled with other discrepancies such as referring to the testator as a ’cultivator’ instead of his actual title as a ’retired government officer,’ and the erroneous use of ’Das’ instead of the correct surname ’Dash,’ further erodes the credibility of the Will. These irregularities, far from being mere clerical errors, point to the likelihood of a flawed or even fabricated document. 28. While the Appellants provided material supporting the execution of the Will, including attesting witnesses and the registration of the Will, the suspicious circumstances identified were not adequately addressed. The Appellants have failed to dispel these suspicions with sufficient clarity to satisfy the Court’s conscience regarding the Will’s authenticity. VI. CONCLUSION: 29. In light of the foregoing, this Court concurs with the trial court’s finding that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances. The Page 17 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 17:51:19 Appellants have not provided a satisfactory explanation for the timing of the Will’s execution, the discrepancies in the document, nor the use of a Left Thumb Impression instead of the testator’s signature. These unresolved issues, coupled with the other irregularities, create significant doubts as to the Will’s authenticity and, by extension, its validity. 30. 31. 32. Upon thorough review of the facts, evidence, and applicable law, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the FAO is dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th July, 2025 Page 18 of 18