- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jethabhai Gokuldas Patel And Others v. Parshottam Havss Kumbhar And Others
Judgment Summary — Macleod, C.J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicants applied for probate of a will purporting to be the last will of two persons, Lallu and his wife Shiv. Both died of plague: Shiv on the 10th of November 1917 and Lallu on the 13th of November. At trial, the learned Judge found the propounded document to be a genuine will after seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence, although the Judge observed circumstances that might give rise to suspicion. Despite finding the document genuine, the learned Judge refused probate on the ground that it was not possible for two persons to make a conjoint will. The matter proceeded on appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a conjoint (joint) will made by two persons is a valid will.
- Whether probate should be granted to the applicants in respect of the conjoint will, given the trial Judge's factual finding of genuineness but legal conclusion that two persons cannot make a conjoint will.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Minakshi Ammal v. Viswanatha Aiyar | Support for the proposition that a joint will can validly be made by two persons (reflecting English authorities). | The Court relied on this authority (and related English authorities) to conclude that the trial Judge's legal view — that two persons could not make a conjoint will — was incorrect, and to hold that a conjoint will is permissible. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded as follows:
- The appellate court accepted the trial Judge's factual finding that the propounded document was a genuine will, noting that the Judge had seen the witnesses and heard their evidence. The court stated there was no reason to disturb a pure finding of fact by the trial Judge.
- The court identified the trial Judge's refusal to grant probate as based on an erroneous legal premise: the Judge held it was not possible for two persons to make a conjoint will.
- The court observed that English authorities (considered in Minakshi Ammal v. Viswanatha Aiyar) long recognised that a will made by two persons is a valid will, albeit one that may present potentially complicated issues to be resolved on the facts of each case.
- Applying that legal principle to the present facts, the court found that because the two persons who made the conjoint will died within three days of each other, no complications would arise in this instance that would prevent probate issuing.
- Accordingly, the court concluded that probate should be granted to the applicants and that the trial Court should issue probate subject to the provisions of the Court-Fees Act. The court also addressed costs and cross-objections.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED.
Direct consequences and orders given in the opinion:
- The appellate court allowed the appeal and directed that the case be remitted to the trial Court to issue probate to the applicants, subject to the provisions of the Court-Fees Act.
- The appellants were awarded their costs from opponent No. 1 in both Courts.
- The cross-objections were dismissed with costs.
The opinion does not discuss broader legal consequences or state that it establishes a new precedent beyond applying existing English authorities and the cited decision in Minakshi Ammal v. Viswanatha Aiyar.
Macleod, C.J:— The applicants applied for probate of a will purporting to be the last will of two persons Lallu and his wife Shiv. They died of plague. Shiv on the 10th of November 1917 and Lallu on the 13th of November. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the will so propounded was a genuine document. Although there are circumstances which might lead us ts look upon the document with some amount of suspicion, yet the learned Judge who saw the witnesses and heard their evidence came to the conclusion that the will was a genuine document.
2. There is no reason why we should disturb the finding of the trial Judge on a pure question of fact. The learned Judge refused probate on the ground that it was act possible for two persons to make a conjoint will. That admittedly was a wrong view of the law. It has certainly for many years been recognised by the English Courts that a will made by two persons is a perfectly valid will, although no doubt it may lead to various complicated situation's the solution of which has to be determined according to the facts of each case. These I English authorities were considered in Minakshi Ammal v. Viswanatha Aiyar (1), where the Court same to the conclusion that joint will can validly be made by two persons. Here, as the two persons who made the conjoint will died within three days of each other, no complications would arise, and therefore, there is no reason why probate should not issue to the applicants. The appeal will be allowed and the case must go back for the Trial Court to issue probate to the applicants subject to the provisions of the Court-Fees Act. The appellants to get their costs from opponent No. 1 in both Courts. The cross-objections are dismissed with costs.
3. Appeal allowed.
Alert