Case Note & Summary
The case involved a testamentary suit filed by the executors of the will of Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, who died in Mumbai on 18th December 2009. The plaintiffs, being the testator's elder son Jitendra, his wife Suman, and their daughter Nisha, sought probate of a registered will dated 10th May 2006. The defendant, Suresh, the testator's younger son, opposed the probate by filing a caveat and later a written statement, alleging that the testator’s signature was forged, he was of unsound mind, the will was unnatural as it excluded him and his three sisters, and it was procured by undue influence of Jitendra. The testator was a former advocate, and his will was detailed, declaring all properties as self-acquired and appointing the plaintiffs as executors. He bequeathed his entire estate to Jitendra, or in alternate succession to Suman and then to Jitendra's son. The will also referred to instructions given separately for amounts to be given to relatives. The attesting witnesses were a chartered accountant and a doctor, both of whom deposed to seeing the testator sign and attesting in his presence. The will was registered subsequently. Issues were framed by the court on due execution, soundness of mind, unnaturalness, and undue influence. The court examined the evidence, including cross-examination of attesting witnesses where some inconsistencies emerged regarding signature identification and the date. The defendant argued that the plaintiff Jitendra, who lived with the testator for 24 years, should have entered the box and his failure warranted an adverse inference. However, the court held that the propounders had discharged their initial burden through attesting witnesses and other material such as consent terms signed by the testator shortly before. It ruled that while Jitendra was in the best position to give evidence on soundness of mind, his failure to testify did not necessitate an adverse inference because the burden had shifted to the caveator who failed to lead any medical evidence or specific instances of unsoundness. On the issue of unnatural disposition, the court found that the will itself contained reasons for the exclusion of other children, and evidence showed a strained relationship between the testator and the defendant. The other daughters did not caveat. The court also held that no undue influence was proved; the alleged suspicious circumstances were not grave enough to trouble a judicial conscience. Consequently, the court answered all issues in favour of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit, and granted probate of the will to the executors.
Headnote
A) Testamentary Succession - Due Execution of Will - Proof by Attesting Witnesses - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Dispute pertained to validity of will dated 10th May 2006 executed by testator, an erstwhile advocate - Propounders examined both attesting witnesses who deposed to seeing the testator sign and then attesting in his presence, followed by registration - Held, due execution proved despite minor inconsistencies in cross-examination about signature identification; registration lent additional support (Paras 13-15) B) Testamentary Succession - Soundness of Mind of Testator - Burden of Proof - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Caveator alleged unsoundness of mind but led no medical evidence or specific instances; propounder's evidence of attesting witnesses and consent terms signed shortly before established prima facie sound mind - Court held that failure of the plaintiff son who lived with testator to testify did not warrant adverse inference, as burden had shifted to caveator who failed to discharge it; personal reasons may exist for not entering the box (Para 11) C) Testamentary Succession - Validity of Will - Unnatural Disposition - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Will excluded three daughters and the defendant son, bequeathing entire estate to plaintiff son, his wife and granddaughter as executors/beneficiaries - Court found the will itself contained reasons for the bequests, and evidence showed strained relations between testator and defendant; other excluded daughters did not caveat - Held, the will was not unnatural merely because it excluded some natural heirs (Paras 12, 4-5) D) Testamentary Succession - Undue Influence - Suspicious Circumstances - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Caveator alleged will obtained by undue influence of plaintiff son - Court considered alleged suspicious circumstances such as testator being taken to doctor/lawyer, and inconsistencies in attesting witness testimony, but found no direct evidence of coercion; testator was physically and mentally capable, and the will was meticulously drafted - Held that mere presence and assistance do not constitute undue influence; burden not discharged (Paras 12, 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the will dated 10th May 2006 of deceased Rajendra Singh Kushwaha was validly executed; whether the deceased was of sound mind at the time of execution; whether the will was unnatural; and whether it was obtained by undue influence.
Final Decision
Suit decreed. Probate granted to the plaintiffs as executors of the will dated 10th May 2006.
Law Points
- Propounder of a will must prove its due execution and the testator's sound mind
- dispel any suspicious circumstances
- registration of will lends support
- burden then shifts to caveator to prove unsoundness or undue influence
- failure to examine a propounder who is also a beneficiary does not automatically warrant adverse inference if other evidence sufficiently establishes validity
- mere exclusion of natural heirs is not unnatural if will provides reasons and evidence of strained relations
- allegations of undue influence require proof of active interference
- not mere opportunity
- inconsistencies in witness testimony must be evaluated in context
- adverse inference for withholding best evidence not fatal when burden otherwise discharged.
