Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, who are executors named in the last Will and Testament of the deceased Rajendra Singh Chhatrasal Singh, filed a Testamentary Petition in the Bombay High Court seeking probate of the alleged Will dated 10th May 2006. The defendant/caveator, Suresh Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 18th March 2013. The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to strike out paragraphs 3, 4, and 13 to 17 of that affidavit on the ground that they were irrelevant, scandalous, and not confined to the issues framed by the court on 23rd August 2012. The issues framed were: (1) Whether the last Will and testament of the deceased dated 10th May 2006 was validly executed; (2) Whether the deceased was in sound state of mind at the time of execution; and (3) What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to? The learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the impugned paragraphs contained allegations that were not relevant to these issues and were prejudicial. The defendant's counsel opposed the application, contending that the paragraphs were relevant to show the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. The court examined the impugned paragraphs and found that they contained matters beyond the scope of the issues framed, including allegations that were not pleaded in the caveat. The court held that in a probate petition, the only relevant facts are those pertaining to the valid execution of the Will and the testator's sound disposing mind. Any extraneous matter, including allegations of fraud or undue influence not specifically pleaded, is irrelevant and must be struck out. Accordingly, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application and ordered that paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the defendant's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief be struck out. The court also directed the defendant to file a fresh affidavit confined to the issues framed within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 16 CPC - Irrelevant and Scandalous Matter - Court has inherent power to strike out pleadings which are unnecessary, scandalous, or may prejudice fair trial - In a probate petition, only matters relating to valid execution of will and testamentary capacity are relevant - Paragraphs containing allegations beyond these issues are liable to be struck out (Paras 2-5). B) Evidence Act - Relevancy - Sections 5, 136 - Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief must be confined to facts in issue - In probate proceedings, facts in issue are limited to due execution of will and sound disposing mind - Any extraneous matter, including allegations of fraud or undue influence not pleaded, is irrelevant and must be excluded (Paras 3-5). C) Testamentary Law - Probate - Issues Framed - Scope of Evidence - Where issues are framed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, evidence must be confined to those issues - In the present case, issues were limited to valid execution and sound state of mind - Paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of defendant's affidavit went beyond these issues and were ordered to be struck out (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the defendant's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief should be struck out as being irrelevant, scandalous, or otherwise inadmissible in a probate petition.
Final Decision
The court allowed the plaintiffs' application and ordered that paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the defendant's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief dated 18th March 2013 be struck out. The defendant was directed to file a fresh affidavit confined to the issues framed within four weeks.
Law Points
- Striking out pleadings
- Relevancy of evidence
- Testamentary proceedings
- Probate
- Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
- Issues framed
