Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta

The testator of a Will (the person who made the Will) died in 1944, leaving behind two sons, Paresh Charan Das (the first respondent), Naresh Charan Das (the appellant), and a daughter, Indira (the second respondent). By his Will, he directed that Rs 10 per month should be paid to his younger son, the appellant, for the period of his life; that his daughter should be entitled to a life estate (holds ownership of the property till her death) in five specified rooms in the house to be enjoyed either personally by her and the members of the family. The first respondent, who was the sole executor under the Will (the person who is named in the Will to execute it as per the terms of it), soon applied for probate (legal validation of the Will by the competent court) thereof. The appellant was against the first respondent seeking grant of probate and hence entered a caveat (formal application to the court requesting that no proceedings must be furthered without the presence of the person who is making such application), and thereupon, the application was registered as a suit. According to the Will, Naresh was deprived of all the movable and immovable properties, both ancestral and self-acquired that the testator (the person who made the Will) owned, because Naresh had an inter-caste marriage against the testator’s wishes. Indira informed that the first respondent told his father that he could not live under the same roof with his brother, and that in view of that attitude, the testator gave no share to the appellant in the house.

The District Court held that the Will, though validly executed and attested with the testator having capacity to make a Will at the time, was executed under undue influence by Paresh and thus refused the grant of probate. Paresh challenged this before the High Court, and Naresh challenged that the Will in question was executed under undue influence of Paresh and was not validly attested, hence invalid. The High Court held in favour of Paresh and directed the grant of probate. This was appealed before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, dismissing the appeal, confirmed the decision of the High Court and held that not every influence on a person making a Will (testator) is considered "undue influence." For it to be undue, there must be fraud or force (coercion), which were not present in this case. The Supreme Court stated that even accepting the evidence of Indira, the facts of the present case would fall under Illustration (vii) of Section 61 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 – “A, being in such a state of health as to be capable of exercising his own judgment and volition, B uses urgent intercession and persuasion with him to induce him to make a Will of a certain purport. A, in consequence of the intercession and persuasion, but in the free exercise of his judgment and volition makes his Will in the manner recommended by B. The Will is not rendered invalid by the intercession and persuasion of B”. It further stated that it is undisputed that the testator was in full possession of his mental stability and there is no proof that the first respondent did anything which would have affected the free exercise by the testator of his free will. The cumulative evidence represents that the Will is not the result of undue influence by the first respondent or his relations.