Facts of the case
Sankaran Nair, the person who made the Will (testator), owned the disputed property, which was initially purchased by Krishnan Nair and Kochukutty, the mother of both Sankaran Nair and Nanikutty Amma. The Appellants are the wife, son, and daughter of Madhavan Nair, the son of Sankaran Nair, while the respondents include the children and grandchildren of Nanikutty Amma. Due to strained relations with his wife and children, Sankaran Nair lived separately and depended on his niece and nephew for financial and medical support, as he had no income and was battling cancer. He stayed with them for seven years after executing his Will. The appellants challenged the validity of the Will, citing suspicious circumstances such as: (1) the Registrar was called home, indicating the testator’s frail health, (2) an attesting witness claimed he had not seen the will being executed, (3) other witnesses were beneficiaries, and (4) no one from the local community was involved as an attesting witness. The Court observed that since the appellants alleged suspicion, the burden of proof lay with the defendants to establish that the testator signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses and possessed capacity to make a Will. The appellants further argued that the beneficiaries were actively involved in its execution. However, the High Court ruled that the will was lawfully executed without any suspicious circumstances, leading to the present appeal.
Issue before the court
- Whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will executed on 7-8-1971 ?
Judgement
The Appellants challenged that the signature of the Testator was obtained under undue influence or coercion, the burden of proof of the same was on them. The Court held that the Appellants failed to prove undue influence or coercion as according to the proof forwarded by the Defendants, the testator appeared to be in the state of mind to execute a Will.
The Court also took into consideration the fact that the Testator lived for 7 years after the execution of his Will and never took any steps to cancel or alter his Will.
The High Court considered the relevant factors and found that the Will was made out of free consent. The Court did not find any legal defect in the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.