Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Savithri & Others (Wife, son and daughter of the son of the testator)
Respondent: Karthyayani Amma & Others (Children and grandchildren of sister of the testator)
Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 2007
Date Of Judgement: Fri Oct 12 2007
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.
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.
The Court held, that no suspicious circumstances were existing. It held, “Deprivation of a due share to the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious circumstances. For the said purpose, as noticed hereinbefore, the background facts should also be taken into consideration”.
It relied on the case of Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukuminibai Vishni Vekhande (SCC pp. 543-44, para 8)
"A Will is executed to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance.”
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.