Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Shanti Devi (Daughter of Testator)
Respondent: Daropti Devi & Others (Daughter of Testator)
Hon’ble Justice Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 2003
Date Of Judgement: Thu Dec 14 2006
Smt. Budho Bai, the person who made the will, signed it on February 22, 1977, stating that her daughter (the appellant) would inherit her property while allegedly disowning her other daughter (the respondent). She passed away on April 20, 1980.
After her death, the appellant applied for mutation (refers to the process of updating her name as the owner of the property in government records, as it has now been inherited by her). However, the respondent opposed this and filed an injunction to stop the transfer, but the court dismissed her case as non-entertainable. She then filed another case asking the court to declare her rights over the property, but that too was dismissed.
The case then went to the High Court as an appeal, which ruled that the burden of proving whether the Will made was under suspicious circumstances is on the plaintiffs and not on the respondents. The High Court then sent the case back to the Trial Judge for further review. The appellant aggrieved by this decision, challenged it.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its focus on the legality of the Will but erred in remitting the case to the Trial Court and incorrectly assigning the burden of proof to the appellants. The Court opined that the appellants should not have been required to disprove the Will, as this burden lies with the respondent who challenges the validity of the Will. The proper procedure involves the trial court adducing evidence and then sending the case back to the High Court for a determination on merit.
The Court criticized the High Court's decision to place the burden of proof on the appellants, noting that it is challenging for a party to disprove a Will. According to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and established judicial principles, the burden of proof in such cases rests on the respondent, who must provide evidence to support the claim of the Will's invalidity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Indian Evidence Act clearly defines the burden of proof, and the burden should not fall on those claiming under a Will.
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.