Case Brief (Rewritten): Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta

The late Smt. Amarjeet Mamik left behind a Will distributing her assets among her son and two daughters. One of her daughters, Kavita Kanwar, was named as the executor of the Will and a major beneficiary, even though she had not lived with her mother for over 20 years.

On the other hand, her other daughter, Pamela Mehta, was a widow with a child who lived in the same building and took care of her mother, who was suffering from cancer. However, she received almost nothing in the Will except for a vague mention that Ms. Kanwar should provide her a place to live in the inherited property.

The testator’s son, Prithviraj Mamik, claimed to have shared a good bond with his mother, but he was only left with a small sum of money in his bank account.

The most valuable asset in the will was a building and a piece of land in Defence Colony, New Delhi. Ms. Kanwar already owned the ground floor, while the rest of the property belonged to the testator.

After her mother’s death, Ms. Kanwar applied for probate (legal validation of the will) in court. However, the Trial Court rejected it, finding several suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. When she appealed, the Delhi High Court also dismissed her case. Still not giving up, she approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the lower courts, ruling that the Will could not be probated due to the suspicious conditions.

The Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court had considered a number of elements that raised suspicion. The sum of all those considerations may conclude that the Will did not accurately reflect the testatrix's (the person who made the Will) final wishes and testament, even though none of them individually may work to undermine the validity of the Will when considered separately and in isolation. The Executor’s actions contributed to these doubtful circumstances by making them worse.

The Supreme Court stated that a Will has to be proved like any other document. Certain elements are indications of suspicious circumstances, such as:

• a shaky and doubtful signature,
• a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator,
• unfair disposition of property,
• unjust exclusion of legal heirs, and
• the active involvement of the major beneficiary in the execution of the Will.

The Court judged it improbable that the gift was the result of a free hand and a free mind and that it did not communicate the testatrix's last wishes given the number of elements shrouded in suspicion and the executor's failure to dispel them. Consequently, the appeal was denied.