Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

MEENA PRADHAN v. KAMLA PRADHAN

Supreme Court Of India

Sep 21, 2023

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Bahadur Pradhan (“the testator”) initially married Meena Pradhan, with whom he had two children—Ravi Kumar and Ku. Sushma. Allegedly, he later divorced Meena and married Kamla Pradhan, who gave birth to Ku. Ritu. Seven days before his death on 07 August 1992, the testator executed a Will dated 30 July 1992 in the presence of two attesting witnesses, Lok Bahadur Thapa (not examined) and Suraj Bahadur Limboo (examined as PW-2).

After the testator’s death, Kamla Pradhan sought a succession certificate, which was initially granted by the VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur (05 July 1995). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside that order on 17 November 1995, directing that the genuineness of the Will be determined in appropriate proceedings.

Consequently, Kamla Pradhan and her daughter instituted proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for probate/letters of administration (Succession Case No. 22/98). The defendants (Meena Pradhan and her two children) contested, disputing the execution of the Will and questioning the legality of the testator’s second marriage.

On 11 December 2001 the Civil Court, Jabalpur upheld the Will’s validity and issued Letters of Administration. The High Court, by judgment dated 25 March 2010 (Misc. Appeal No. 382/2002), affirmed the Civil Court’s decision. The present Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17115/2010) challenges those concurrent findings before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether sufficient grounds exist for the Supreme Court to interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the Civil Court and High Court upholding the validity of the testator’s Will.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (Defendants) – Meena Pradhan & Ors.

Asserted that the Will was forged and not duly executed.
Alleged that the testator lacked a sound and disposing mind at the time of execution.
Contended that the purported second marriage to Kamla Pradhan constituted bigamy, thereby casting doubt on the Will’s authenticity.

Respondents (Plaintiffs) – Kamla Pradhan & Ku. Ritu

Relied on strict compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
Pointed to the testimony of attesting witness Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW-2), who confirmed execution and attestation in the testator’s presence.
Urged that no credible evidence suggested fraud, undue influence, or mental incapacity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426	Foundational principles on proof of wills and removal of suspicious circumstances.	Used to outline the twin requirements: execution by the testator and satisfaction of a prudent mind.
Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135	Standards for attestation and burden on the propounder when suspicion exists.	Cited in compiling the checklist for validating a will under Section 63.
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91	Necessity of examining at least one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.	Relied upon to emphasize that PW-2’s testimony sufficed to prove execution.
Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780	Doctrine that suspicious circumstances heighten the propounder’s onus.	Referenced while assessing whether any legitimate suspicion remained unremoved.
Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277	Clarified that suspicious circumstances must be “real, germane and valid,” not fanciful.	Used to dismiss the appellants’ allegations as unsupported by real or germane evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court first enumerated statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, reiterating that at least one attesting witness must prove execution, and that the testator must have signed voluntarily, in a sound disposing mind, free from undue influence.

Drawing upon established precedent, the Court distilled eleven guiding principles for evaluating wills. Applying these principles to the record, the Court observed:

PW-2 unequivocally testified that he and the testator signed the Will in each other’s presence, satisfying Section 63(c).
No evidence indicated the testator lacked mental capacity or was subject to undue influence.
Allegations of bigamy or marital status, even if assumed, were irrelevant to the core issue of testamentary validity.
The Civil Court and High Court had provided well-reasoned findings; no perversity or misapplication of law was shown.

Consequently, the Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any “real, germane and valid” suspicious circumstances warranting interference with concurrent findings.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order, thereby upholding the validity of the Will and the grant of Letters of Administration to the respondents.

Implications: The decision finalises succession in favour of Kamla Pradhan and Ku. Ritu; consequential benefits are to be disbursed accordingly. The judgment applies settled principles and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming established jurisprudence on proof of wills.

Show all summary ...

2023INSC847

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3351 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.17115/2010) MEENA PRADHAN & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KAMLA PRADHAN & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: There was one Bahadur Pradhan who married Meena Pradhan (Defendant-2/Appellant No.1 herein) with whom he had two children namely, Ravi Kumar (Defendant-3/ Appellant No.2

herein) and Ku. Sushma (Defendant-4/Appellant No.3 herein). Allegedly, he divorced his first wife and solemnised another marriage with Kamla Pradhan (Plaintiff-1/Respondent No.1 herein) who gave birth to a child namely Ku. Ritu (Plaintiff-2/Respondent No.2 herein). Bahadur Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'testator'), seven days before his death (07.08.1992), executed a Will on 30.07.1992 in the presence of two witnesses namely Lok Bahadur Thapa (not examined) and Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW-2).

2. After the death of the testator, the Plaintiffs filed a case for receiving the testator's dues wherein a succession certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No.1 by VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 05.07.1995. Proceedings stood concluded with the reversal of such an order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in terms of order dated 17.11.1995, quashing the entire proceedings, observing the authenticity and genuineness of the Will, in existence to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

3. Pursuant to this order of the High Court, proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Succession Act') for a grant of Probate or Letter of Administration were initiated by both the Plaintiffs. The Defendants

challenged the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiffs, also raising an objection about the testator having married Plaintiff No.1.

4. The Civil Court, Jabalpur, MP vide order dated 11.12.2001, in Succession Case No. 22/98 while relying on the testimony of an attesting witness, namely, Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2) upheld the validity of the Will in favour of the beneficiaries and accordingly issued Letter(s) of Administration. The said order was challenged by the Defendants. The High Court in repelling the Defendant's contention of the Will being a forged document, by discussing the relevant statutory provisions and decisions of this Court, affirmed the order of the Civil Court.

5. Hence, the instant Appeal against the final judgment dated 25.03.2010 in Misc. Appeal No. 382 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, confirming the order of the Civil Court in Succession Case No.22/98 wherein it upheld the validity of the Will and issued Letters of Administration.

6. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding validity of a Will.

7. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions dealing with the validity and execution of the Will.

"Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 Execution of unprivileged wills- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 Proof of Execution of document required by law to be attested- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: xxx"

8. Thus, a bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions would show that the requirements enshrined under Section 63 of the Succession Act have to be categorially complied with for the

execution of the Will to be proven in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

9. A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation.

10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3-Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3-Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91(2-Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3-Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3-Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will:

i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;

ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.

iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:

(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;

(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;

(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by

the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;

(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;

iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;

v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator;

vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;

vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence;

viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier.

ix. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will;

x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.

xi. Suspicious circumstances must be 'real, germane and valid' and not merely 'the fantasy of the doubting mind'¹. Whether a particular feature would qualify as 'suspicious' would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.

11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will,

(b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.

12. Coming to the facts of the case, a careful perusal of the relevant material on record and applying the provisions and the case laws it is evident that the Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound

1 Shivakumar (supra)

disposing state of mind and the same stands proven through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Suraj Bahadur Limboo who was examined as PW-2 by the Civil Court. This witness categorically states that the testator executed the Will in question and, both he and the testator signed the Will in the presence of each other.

13. As far as allegations made by the defendants are concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no evidence on record to conclude that the deceased was not in a fit or stable mental condition at the time of execution of a Will, or that a Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, or the presence of any element of undue influence.

14. Thus, in the case at hand, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have rightly noted that the relevant provisions were complied with, and given the well-reasoned order upholding the validity of the Will, the same does not warrant interference of this court.

15. As far as the allegations of second marriage and bigamy are concerned, we refrain from entertaining such submissions as the

same is not a relevant factor in deciding the main lis, which is confined to the validity of the Will.

16. This Appeal is bereft of any merit and hence dismissed. Since the validity of the Will stands proven according to settled principles of law, consequential benefits be disbursed accordingly.

17. Interlocutory Application(s) if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

……..……………..J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

…………………….J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

Date : 21^st September, 2023; Place: New Delhi.