- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Sundaresa Pai And Others v. Sumangala T. Pai (Mrs) And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondents 1 and 2 are daughters, and the appellants are the three sons, of the late Smt. Indira Bai, who died on 13-11-1981. In April 1983 Respondent 1 filed a suit claiming that her mother had died intestate and that she (the plaintiff) was therefore entitled to a 1/6th share of her assets. She alleged that any will propounded by the defendants was forged.
The father, the three brothers, and the remaining sister (the present Respondent 2) together defended the suit, relying on an unregistered will dated 26-8-1981. During the pendency of the suit the father (original Defendant 1) died.
The trial court accepted the defendants’ evidence—principally the testimony of an advocate who, along with the father, had attested the will—and dismissed the suit. On first appeal, the High Court reversed these findings: it held that the will had not been proved, held the plaintiff entitled to a share, and remanded the matter to determine whether the share would be 1/6th or, in view of the father’s death, 1/5th.
The sons appealed to the Supreme Court; the surviving sister (Respondent 2) supported the appellants.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the will dated 26-8-1981 executed by Smt. Indira Bai was duly proved in accordance with law.
- If the will was validly proved, whether the suit claiming intestate succession and partition was liable to be dismissed.
- Whether circumstances such as uneven distribution of property, want of registration, or nondisclosure of the will constituted “suspicious circumstances” sufficient to invalidate the will.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Sons)
- The testimony of the attesting advocate (DW 2) satisfied the statutory requirements for proving execution and attestation of the will.
- Unequal or selective bequests are within the testator’s discretion and do not, by themselves, render the will suspicious or unnatural.
- Registration of a will is optional; non-registration cannot undermine a properly attested will.
- The plaintiff alone challenged the will; all other legal heirs accepted it, weakening any allegation of fabrication.
Respondent 1 (Plaintiff)
- The will was “unnatural” because it gave the bulk of immovable property to one son, left another son without immovable assets, granted only a half-share to a third son, and provided nothing for the widowed daughter or for the husband of the testatrix.
- Non-registration of the will was suspicious, especially because the husband’s will had been registered.
- The supposed will was never mentioned in correspondence between the plaintiff and her father after the mother’s death, suggesting its later fabrication.
- No independent comparison of the testatrix’s admitted signatures with those on the will was produced by the defendants.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court itself had acknowledged “formal evidence of execution”: the testatrix signed in the presence of two attestors, and they signed in her presence. One attestor (her husband) had since died, but the second attestor—an advocate who had long served as the family’s lawyer—testified and was believed by the trial court.
The Court held that unequal distribution of assets is not, per se, a suspicious circumstance; testamentary freedom allows a parent to privilege some children over others. The widowed daughter’s alleged greater need could not invalidate the will, especially because she herself supported it.
Non-registration was deemed immaterial; registration of wills is optional under Indian law. The Court accepted the advocate’s explanation that the husband had registered his own will only because of continuing litigation, whereas the wife chose not to register hers.
Correspondence omitting reference to the will was equally inconclusive, particularly when earlier tax and estate-duty proceedings had acknowledged the will. The burden to produce specimen signatures lay with the challenger; the plaintiff failed to do so.
Finding no “suspicious circumstances” and satisfied that statutory proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act had been met, the Court concluded that the High Court’s contrary finding was unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside; trial court judgment dismissing the suit restored.
Practical Implication: Respondent 1’s claim to a share in the estate fails, and the property will devolve according to the will dated 26-8-1981. The decision turns on established principles of testamentary proof and does not announce a new rule; its effect is confined to the parties and the validity of this particular will.
Y.K Sabharwal, J.— Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal are daughters of one Indira Bai. Appellants are her three sons. Indira Bai died on 13-11-1981.
2. In April 1983, Respondent 1 instituted a suit against the appellants, Respondent 2 and her father claiming that Indira Bai died intestate on 13-11-1981 and she is entitled to 1/6th share in the properties left behind by her. She also pleaded that if there is any will that is forged. All the defendants, namely, father, three brothers and one sister of plaintiff Respondent 1 took the stand that Indira Bai had left behind a will dated 26-8-1981 and her properties are to be dealt with as per the will. The father of Respondent 1 who was Defendant 1 in the suit died during the pendency of the suit.
3. On appreciation of evidence the trial court held that the will had been duly proved and the suit was dismissed. In the first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed by the High Court. The findings of the trial court upholding the will dated 26-8-1981 were reversed by the impugned judgment. It was held that the will had not been proved and the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in the assets of Indira Bai. Since the husband of Indira Bai died during the pendency of the suit and Respondent 1 disputed the execution of will by her father and proceeding on the basis that her father died intestate, the plaintiff by amending the plaint claimed 1/5th share instead of 1/6th in the estate of Indira Bai. The High Court directed remand of the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal in the light of the findings in respect of the will dated 26-8-1981. The trial court was directed to decide whether Respondent 1 inherited 1/6th or 1/5th share in the estate of Indira Bai. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal by the sons of Indira Bai. The other sister supporting the appellants is Respondent 2 in the appeal.
4. The two attesting witnesses to the will of Indira Bai are her husband and an advocate. The advocate appeared in the suit as a witness (DW 2). Admittedly he was the family lawyer of the defendants. The High Court has recorded a finding that “Undoubtedly there is a formal evidence of execution of the will, that is, Indira Bai signing the will in the presence of attestators and the attestators signing the will in the presence of Indira Bai.” After this finding, the High Court examines the circumstances and comes to the conclusion that the will was unnatural and in this view the finding of the trial court upholding the will was reversed.
5. The main reason which weighed with the High Court for its conclusion that the will was unnatural was uneven distribution of the assets by Indira Bai and also that the will did not give anything to the widowed daughter. According to the High Court this daughter was “perhaps more deserving”. It also noticed that the will gave bulk of immovable properties to only one son. Another son was not given any immovable property. The third son was given one-half share in only one immovable property and the other half of it was given to Respondent 1. Indira Bai in the will also did not give anything to her husband. All movables as per the will were given to the three sons equally.
6. It is significant to note that only the plaintiff has questioned the will. All the defendants were supporting the will. The High Court also found that in view of the testimony of the attesting witness, the will had been formally proved. Under these circumstances, we fail to understand how the conclusion about the will being unnatural on the basis of uneven distribution of the assets by Indira Bai could be reached. The widowed daughter had not questioned the will. She rather supported it. Therefore, it could not be taken as a circumstance to show that the will was unnatural by observing that she was more deserving. It is a question which lies squarely within the pure discretion of the executant of the will. The finding that the “will is most unnatural” cannot be sustained.
7. Learned counsel for plaintiff-Respondent 1, supporting the impugned judgment also laid strong emphasis on uneven distribution of the assets which, according to him, shows the suspicious circumstances in respect of the execution of the will. The uneven distribution of assets amongst children, by itself, cannot be taken as a circumstance causing suspicion surrounding the execution of the will. One son was given bulk of immovable properties; another none; another half share in one immovable property; other half being given to the plaintiff and another daughter and husband were given nothing. It is also not in dispute that some properties were given in gift to the plaintiff by her mother during her lifetime. There was nothing unnatural. Learned counsel for Respondent 1 also sought to rely upon certain other circumstances which, according to him, raise suspicion about due execution of the will. It was contended that the will in question was not registered in spite of the fact that the will executed by her husband was registered. This circumstance does not create doubt about the due execution of the will. There is nothing unnatural in the will made by the husband being registered and not that of his wife. Further, DW 2, an advocate of the family who was attesting witness of both the wills, explained in his testimony that because of the litigation in respect of the will of his wife, the husband insisted that his will must be registered.
8. It was then pointed out that the factum of the will was not disclosed in the correspondence between the plaintiff and her father which was exchanged after her mother's death and before filing of the suit. A perusal of the plaint shows that it is plaintiff's own case that in earlier litigations between brother and sister, the will of Indira Bai had been set up and admittedly the correspondence between the plaintiff and her father ensued later. It appears that in proceedings in relation to estate duty and wealth tax, the factum of the will had been disclosed. The further fact that there was acrimony between the plaintiff and her father, if at all, may be a circumstance which may show why a large share in the estate was not given to the plaintiff. As already noticed, only the plaintiff was questioning the will. Others were supporting the will. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to urge that since nothing or almost nothing substantial was provided for in the will for others, it creates suspicion about execution of the will. The execution of the will having been proved by the attesting witness, on the facts and circumstances noticed above, no presumption could be drawn against the defendants for not having filed other admitted documents of Indira Bai for the purpose of comparing her signatures on the will. The plaintiff was disputing the will. She did not take any steps for the production of the documents containing the admitted signatures of Indira Bai. In respect of documents produced by her the High Court observed that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the signatures contained in those documents were those of Indira Bai. The trial court had rightly relied upon the testimony of DW 2. The finding of the High Court that the will of Indira Bai had not been proved cannot be sustained.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
Alert