The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, ruled on a property dispute involving the validity of a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Govindrao Chimurkar. The plaintiff sought partition of family property, asserting that the Will presented by the second defendant was fabricated. After a detailed examination of the facts and evidence, the Court held that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and failed to meet the legal requirements for attestation. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted a 1/5th share in the disputed properties.

1. Background of the Case

The case revolves around properties located in Nagpur, owned by the deceased Govindrao Chimurkar, who passed away intestate in 2002. The plaintiff, a legal heir, filed a suit seeking declaration, partition, separate possession, and injunction against the defendants, who claimed that a Will was executed in their favor by the deceased.

2. The Disputed Will

• The main contention arose when Defendant No.2 produced a Will allegedly executed by Govindrao on 26.10.1995, bequeathing the properties solely to him.
• The plaintiff contested the validity of this Will, asserting that the document was fabricated and did not reflect the deceased's true intentions.

3. Evidence and Testimony

• The propounder of the Will failed to provide convincing evidence to support the document's authenticity. One attesting witness, Manik Mahadeorao Ingole, stated that although his signature appeared on the Will, he had neither witnessed the execution nor was aware of the contents.
• The second attesting witness, Manohar Wadyalkar, was not examined, further deepening suspicions.

4. Suspicious Circumstances

Several suspicious circumstances surrounded the Will, including:

• The plaintiff's unexplained exclusion from the Will, despite there being no strained relationship with the deceased.
• Delayed production of the Will during prior legal proceedings.
• Manipulation of the deceased's bank account by the defendant shortly after his death.

5. Legal Considerations

The Court emphasized the importance of complying with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs the attestation of Wills. The failure to properly examine both attesting witnesses and the presence of numerous suspicious circumstances led to the conclusion that the Will was not genuine.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63): Discusses the attestation requirements for a valid Will.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68): Addresses the necessity of examining an attesting witness to prove a Will.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 41 Rule 27): Related to the procedure for introducing additional evidence in appeals.

Ratio Decidendi:

The primary ratio of this judgment rests on the principle that a Will must be proved to be free from suspicious circumstances. The Court found that the propounder of the Will failed to remove doubts regarding its validity. The suspicious circumstances, coupled with improper attestation, rendered the Will invalid. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/5th share in the family property.

Subjects:

Dispute over inheritance, validity of Will, and partition of property.

#PropertyDispute #WillValidation #IndianSuccessionAct #InheritanceLaw