Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Harish Vithal Kulkarni and Shivanand Vishwanath Warty, claiming to be executors under a Will dated 11th October, 1991 of Mahadeo Sabnis (deceased), filed a testamentary petition for grant of probate. The deceased died on 23rd April, 1992, leaving behind his widow Sudha Mahadeo Sabnis and son Pradeep Mahadeo Sabnis (defendant). The defendant filed a suit for letters of administration on 8th October, 1993, alleging intestacy, and a Court Receiver was appointed by consent. The plaintiffs were impleaded as defendants in that suit. Citations were served on 20th January, 1994, and the defendant lodged a caveat on 9th February, 1994. The Will allegedly bequeathed Rs. 1 lac each to the defendant's sons, Rs. 1 lac for scholarships, and Rs. 1 lac to a sangh, but the bulk of the estate was not disposed of. The defendant opposed probate on grounds of suspicious circumstances: the deceased was suffering from cancer and was in the hospital at the time of execution, the propounders were actively involved, and the Will was unnatural as it disinherited the natural heirs. The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the attesting witness and the propounders. It found that the propounders failed to prove that the deceased had testamentary capacity, that the Will was read over to him, and that he signed it in their presence. The court held that the propounders did not dispel the suspicious circumstances and dismissed the probate petition with costs.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Will - Proof of Execution - Suspicious Circumstances - Section 63 Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The propounders of a Will must remove all suspicious circumstances, such as the Will being executed when the testator was ill, the propounders taking a prominent part in its execution, and the Will being unnatural or improbable. In this case, the Will was executed when the testator was suffering from cancer and was in the hospital, the propounders were actively involved, and the Will disinherited the natural heirs without adequate explanation. Held that the propounders failed to discharge the burden of proving due execution (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Will dated 11th October, 1991 was duly executed by the deceased Mahadeo Sabnis in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the propounders have dispelled all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the probate petition with costs, holding that the propounders failed to prove due execution of the Will and did not dispel the suspicious circumstances.
Law Points
- Suspicious circumstances
- due execution
- testamentary capacity
- active participation
- Section 63 Indian Succession Act
- Section 68 Indian Evidence Act
- propounder's duty
- burden of proof
