Case Brief (Rewritten): Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty

The property under dispute was owned by Padmayya Kambali who had 4 sons and 3 daughters. Appellant 1 and 2 are his daughters while Appellant 3 is his granddaughter through his daughter who has died. Respondent 13 is his son while Respondents 1-12 are his grandchildren through his three sons who died.

Kambali had executed a Will in 1976 which was then registered in 1980. The Will had been duly executed, as stated by the scribe (the person who writes legal documents) who testified that he scribed the Will according to the dictation of the Testator. The Attesting witnesses also testified that the Will had been signed by the Testator (the person who made the Will) in their presence, while in sound mind, after having understood the nature and effects of the bequest (transfer of assets through a Will) made by him.

Testator, who was 80 at the time of executing the Will, died 15 days after execution of the Will.

The Appellants challenged the capacity of the testator to make a Will in the Trial court, where the Will was held to be valid. In an appeal to the High Court, the findings found the Will to be genuine and valid. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellants filed the current appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Appellants argued that the Will had not been executed as per law, that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, that the Burden of proving that it was duly executed was on the ones depending on the Will, which they had failed to do so and that the Testator (the person who is making the Will) was not of the capacity to have executed his Will as he had died within 15 days of its execution.

The Court relied on the settled proposition of law that the burden of proving the validity of the Will is on the executor while the party alleging undue influence, fraud and coercion has the burden of proving the same. Considering this fact, the Court re-examined the testimonies of the Scribe and the two attesting witnesses.

Through this re-examination, it found that the depositions of both, the Scribe and attesting witnesses, point to the Will being attested according to law, and the Appellants failed to disprove the same in the cross-examination.

The Testator was 80 at the time of the execution and had died 15 days after, however, no other evidence had been presented that showed that the Testator was in poor health and that he did not possess full physical and mental stability. Nothing in the Cross-examinations put a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the Testamentary capacity (capacity to make a Will) of the Testator.

At the time of registration on 11-09-1980, statements of the scribe and the attesting witnesses were recorded by the Registrar and registered only at his satisfaction. Thus, the court held that the Will was attested according to law and dismissed the Appeal.