Case Note & Summary
The present Testamentary Suit was filed by Dr. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare (since deceased) and Devendra alias Sanju Vithal Rananavare, sons of the deceased Vithal Gunduji Rananavare from his second wife Shantabai, seeking Letters of Administration in respect of a writing dated 10th August 1991 propounded as the last Will and Testament of the deceased. The deceased had married twice: first wife Indumati had two sons (including Defendant No.1 Avinash), and second wife Shantabai had two sons (the Plaintiffs) and two daughters (including Defendant No.2 Dr. Mrs. Shashikala Sunil Katkade). The Will allegedly bequeathed the deceased's properties to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2, excluding Defendant No.1. The Plaintiffs claimed that the deceased executed the Will on 10th August 1991 at his residence in the presence of two attesting witnesses, namely Mr. Shankar G. Kulkarni and Mr. Shridhar S. Kulkarni, and that the deceased died on 12th August 1991. The Defendants opposed the grant, contending that the Will was not duly executed and attested, and that it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Court framed issues including whether the Will was executed and attested as required by law, and whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to Letters of Administration. The Plaintiffs examined only one attesting witness (PW-2 Shankar Kulkarni) and did not examine the other attesting witness or the scribe. The Court found that the Will was not registered, the testator was seriously ill at the time of execution, the propounders did not call the doctor to testify, and the attesting witness's testimony did not establish that the second witness attested in the presence of the testator. The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving the Will and to dispel the suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the Suit was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Will - Proof of Execution - Suspicious Circumstances - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 - The propounder of a Will must prove its due execution and attestation, and where suspicious circumstances exist, must dispel them by clear and satisfactory evidence. In the present case, the Will was allegedly executed when the testator was seriously ill and died shortly thereafter; the propounders failed to examine the attesting witnesses or the scribe, and the Will was not registered. Held that the Will was not proved and the suit for Letters of Administration was dismissed. (Paras 1-41) B) Succession Law - Will - Attestation - Requirement of Two Witnesses - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c) - For a Will to be valid, it must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark. In this case, only one attesting witness was examined, and his testimony did not establish that the other witness had attested in the presence of the testator. Held that the requirement of proper attestation was not satisfied. (Paras 30-35) C) Succession Law - Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Non-production of Attesting Witnesses - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(g) - Where the propounder fails to examine available attesting witnesses without satisfactory explanation, an adverse inference may be drawn that their evidence would not support the propounder's case. In this case, the Plaintiffs did not examine the second attesting witness or the scribe, and the explanation given was not satisfactory. Held that adverse inference was drawn against the Plaintiffs. (Paras 36-40)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writing dated 10th August 1991 propounded by the Plaintiffs is the last Will and Testament of the deceased Vithal Gunduji Rananavare, and whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to Letters of Administration in respect thereof.
Final Decision
The Suit is dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will
- Burden of proof on propounder
- Section 63 of Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Attestation requirements
- Propounder must dispel suspicion
