- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee And Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) By Lrs. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Saroj Bala executed a will on 30 November 1966, followed by two codicils dated 2 February 1968 and 21 November 1970. She died on 13 January 1971 at the age of 90. The named executors sought probate before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, which refused probate on the ground that the documents were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Calcutta High Court affirmed that refusal. The executors then filed the present appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the will dated 30 November 1966 and its two codicils were surrounded by suspicious circumstances sufficient to deny probate.
- Whether the propounders discharged their burden of dispelling any such suspicion to establish the genuineness and voluntariness of the testamentary documents.
Arguments of the Parties
Objectors’ Arguments
- The testatrix deprived her natural heirs, casting doubt on the will’s genuineness.
- The identification of the testatrix before the Sub-Registrar by an advocate connected to one of the executors suggested undue influence.
- The attesting witnesses were interested in the executors, undermining the credibility of the execution.
- A relative of an executor, described as “ubiquitous,” actively managed the execution process, indicating suspicious involvement.
Propounders’ Position (as reflected in the judgment)
- Disinheritance of some heirs is inherent in testamentary dispositions and cannot alone create suspicion.
- The advocate correctly identified the testatrix; no allegation was made that a wrong person was identified.
- The will and codicils were registered, and the Sub-Registrar certified that the documents were read over and explained to the testatrix, mitigating concerns about interested witnesses.
- Subsequent acts of the testatrix—executing two codicils, creating a fixed deposit receipt in 1967, and selling property in 1967—demonstrated her continued capacity and voluntariness.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court systematically examined each circumstance deemed suspicious by the lower courts:
- Disinheritance of natural heirs: The Court held that the very purpose of a will is to depart from the normal line of succession; therefore, exclusion of certain heirs does not inherently raise suspicion, especially when some of them still benefit under the will.
- Identification by an advocate: Suspicion would arise only if a wrong person had been identified, which was not alleged. Hence, no adverse inference was warranted.
- Interested attesting witnesses: Because the will and codicils were registered and the Sub-Registrar certified that the documents were read over to the testatrix, the interest of witnesses lost significance.
- Active role of a relative (Subodh): While his involvement could raise “eyebrows,” the Court found other evidence confirming voluntariness—namely, the execution of two later codicils adjusting for changed circumstances, the creation of a substantial fixed deposit, and the sale of property by the testatrix—showing her continued awareness and agency.
Taking a “total view,” the Court concluded that the lower courts over-emphasised certain factors and overlooked evidence supporting the authenticity and voluntary nature of the testamentary documents.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed; the judgments of the Additional District Judge and the Calcutta High Court are set aside, and the will dated 30 November 1966, as modified by the two codicils, is ordered to be probated.
Implications: Probate is granted to the executors, allowing them to administer the estate in accordance with the will and codicils. The Supreme Court’s decision impacts only the parties to this dispute and sets no new precedent, as it turns on the evaluation of facts and the absence of genuine suspicious circumstances. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
B.L Hansaria, J.— A will contains the last desire of testator/testatrix. The courts, therefore, normally act in accordance with the wishes of the person concerned. But then, if the courts were to doubt either genuineness or voluntariness of the maker of the will, they would be loathe to work in accordance with what has been stated in the will. To put it differently, if the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the removal of which is the burden of the propounder, the will would not be probated.
2. In the appeal at hand, we are concerned with a will said to have been made by one Saroj Bala on 30-11-1966. This was followed by two codicils dated 2-2-1968 and 21-11-1970. Saroj Bala passed away on 13-1-1971 at the age of 90. On the petitioners, who were named as executors in the will, approaching the Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, for obtaining probate of the will, read with the codicils, the same was refused, as the learned trial Judge felt that these were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. On appeal being preferred, the High Court at Calcutta also took the same view. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. A perusal of the two impugned judgments shows that the following were regarded as suspicious circumstances:
(1) Deprivation of the natural heirs by the testatrix.
(2) Identification of the testatrix before the Sub-Registrar by an Advocate of Calcutta who had acted as a lawyer of one of the executors in some cases.
(3) The witnesses to the documents were interested in the appellants.
(4) Active part played by one Subodh, a close relation of Rabindra, one of the executors, in getting execution of the will. He has been described as ubiquitous.
4. As to the first circumstance, we would observe that this should not raise any suspicion, because the whole idea behind execution of will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. So natural heirs would be debarred in every case of will; of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in others only partially. As in the present case, the two executors are sons of a half-blood brother of Saroj Bala, whereas the objectors descendants of a full blood sister, the disinheritance of latter could not have been taken as a suspicious circumstance, when some of her descendants are even beneficiaries under the will.
5. As to the identification by a lawyer of Calcutta, it may be stated that this could have been regarded as a suspicious circumstance if a wrong person would have been identified as Saroj Bala. That, however, is not the case of the objectors. So, there is no bane in this circumstance.
6. Insofar as the third circumstance is concerned, we may first observe that witnesses in such documents verify whether the same had been executed voluntarily by the person concerned knowing its contents. In case where a will is registered and the Sub-Registrar certifies that the same had been read over to the executor who, on doing so, admitted the contents, the fact that the witnesses to the document are interested loses significance. The documents at hand were registered and it is on record that the Sub-Registrar had explained the contents to the old lady. So, we do not find the third circumstance as suspicious on the facts of the present case.
7. As to ‘ubiquitous’ Subodh, it may be said that somebody has to take necessary steps in such matters; but if he happens to be one close to the executor, some eyebrow is bound to rise. Even so, if there be other circumstances on record to show the voluntary character of the document, the eyebrows should get dropped down. And such circumstances were present in the case, which somehow missed the two courts below. These are:
(1) Making of two codicils by Saroj Bala, last of which was about three years after the execution of will. The need for these arose because the testatrix had made use of some of the properties listed in the will. So, the testatrix knew what was the will for and why it needed change.
(2) The testatrix executed an FDR of Rs 15,000 on 2-8-1967, which shows that she was not so immobile or senile as sought to be made out by the respondents. The fact that her signature in the FDR was shaky has no cutting edge, because nearing 90 at the relevant time, the signature could have well been shaky because of old age.
(3) Testatrix sold some property in February 1967 and received the sale price, which shows her consciousness as to how to deal with her properties.
8. If a total view is taken of the aforesaid circumstances, which has to be the approach, we are of the opinion that the courts below overplayed some circumstances which they regarded as suspicious and somehow missed some circumstances which bolstered the case of the propounders.
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. The result is that the will, as modified by the two codicils, stands probated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.
Alert