Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Jora Singh & Ors. (Nephews of testator)
Respondent: Sukhdev Singh and Others
Hon’ble Justice Vinod K. Sharma, J (P&H HC)
Date Of Appeal: 1991
Banta Singh, executed a Will on 12.03.1979 and died on 17.09.1985. The petitioners, who served Banta Singh, claimed ownership of half the land based on the Will and sought a permanent injunction to prevent interference. The defendants admitted the Will's content but alleged that Banta Singh had revoked it via a registered cancellation deed on 28.02.1985 and executed a new Will on 17.08.1985. The Trial court found that Banta Singh did not die in 1985 but had executed a new Will in 1988, dismissing the petitioners' suit.
The Court confirmed the cancellation of the Will dated March 12, 1975, stating that under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, a Will can be revoked by destruction or cancellation. The court rejected the appellant's argument that Section 63(c) applied to the revocation, as there was no evidence suggested that the revocation failed to meet legal requirements.
The appellants also argued that the unregistered Will dated August 17, 1985, was suspicious because of the beneficiary’s presence when it was made. However, the Court dismissed this claim, referring to a legal precedent stating that beneficiary’s mere presence or the non - examination of an attesting witness in court does not automatically make a Will invalid. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the defendants.
According to Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act:
"Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil.-- No unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by another Will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is hereinbefore required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same."
The court found no suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, adhering to the precedent set in Biru Ram (Deceased) through LRs v. Barkha Ram alias Barkat (1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 545), which states that the mere presence of a beneficiary or the non-examination of an attesting witness is not fatal to the Will's validity.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.