Spread the love
CITATION(1996) 2 MPJR 119
DATE OF JUDGMENT17-11-1995
COURTMadhya Pradesh High Court
APPELLANTMeena Pradhan (Smt.)
RESPONDENTKamla Pradhan (Smt.) and Others
BENCHRamesh Surajmal Garg, J

INTRODUCTION 

Meena Pradhan vs Kamla Pradhan,2023″ is a notable legal case in the Indian judicial system. The case involves Meena Pradhan as the appellant, and Kamla Pradhan as the respondent. The  case is related to legal disputes or matters involving Kamla Pradhan and individuals represented  by Kamla Pradhan and others. The year 2023 signifies the year in which the relevant court  heard or decided the case. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

(i) That the aforesaid Appeal filed before the Apex Court by one, Meena Pradhan, Ravi Kumar,  and Sushma Bhargava (Appellants) against Kamla Pradhan and Kumari Ritu (Respondents),  challenged the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur (High  Court), which had refused to consider the accusation of forgery and illegality regarding a Will  and thereby, upheld the Order of the Ld. Jabalpur Civil Court in a Succession Case, which  granted Letters of Administration to the Testator’s second wife and her family. 

(ii) That one, Bahadur Pradhan (Testator) married Smt. Meena Pradhan (Defendant 2 /  Appellant No.1) and had two children, Ravi Kumar (Defendant 3 / Appellant No.2) and Ku.  Sushma (Defendant 4 / Appellant No.3). That allegedly, the Testator divorced his first wife and 

subsequently married Smt. Kamla Pradhan (Plaintiff 1 / Respondent No.1), who gave birth to  a child namely Ku. Ritu (Plaintiff 2 / Respondent No.2). 

(iii) Thereafter, the Testator executed a Will on 30.07.1992, just seven days before his death on  07.08.1992. He did so in the presence of two witnesses, one, Lok Bahadur Thapa (not  examined) and one, Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2). 

(iv) Subsequently, after the Testator’s demise, the Plaintiffs filed a case to claim the Testator’s  dues. Thereafter, a Succession Certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent No.1 by Ld.  VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur (Civil Court) on 05.07.1995. 

(v) However, this decision was later reversed by the High Court vide Order dated 17.11.1995,  which quashed the proceedings and determined that the authenticity and genuineness of the  Will required assessment in appropriate proceedings. 

(vi) Subsequently, both Plaintiffs initiated proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian  Succession Act 1925 (Petition for Probate) to obtain a grant of Probate or Letter of  Administration. Thereafter, in response, the Defendants challenged the execution of the Will  and raised objections regarding the Testator’s marriage to Plaintiff No.1. 

(vii) The Civil Court in its Order dated 11.12.2001, in Succession Case No. 22/98, upheld the  validity of the Will in favour of the Plaintiffs-beneficiaries. This decision relied upon the  testimony of an attesting witness, Suraj Bahadur Limboo (PW2). Subsequently, the Civil Court  issued Letters of Administration. 

(viii) Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Civil Court, the Defendants challenged the same  before the High Court, and subsequently the High Court, in its judgment, affirmed the validity  of the Will and dismissed the Defendant’s claim of forgery. The High Court confirmed the Civil  Court’s decision, upholding the authenticity and validity of the Will.

ISSUE RAISED 

A) Whether the Will executed by the Testator, met the legal requirements, particularly  compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 

B) Whether, the Testator possessed the necessary mental capacity and was of sound mind  during the Will’s execution, including an understanding of its consequences. 

C) Whether the Court needed to examine if any suspicious circumstances surrounded the Will’s  execution, potentially casting doubt on its validity, and whether these circumstances had been adequately addressed. 

D) Whether the Court had to determine the relevance of allegations concerning a second  marriage and bigamy in the broader context of the case. 

CIVIL COURT FINDINGS: 

(I) That the Court found that the Will had been executed in accordance with the provisions of  Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Execution of unprivileged Wills). Further, the  Civil Court noted that the Testator had affixed his signature or mark in the Will, and two or  more witnesses had attested the Will in the presence of the Testator. 

(II) Thereafter, the Civil Court determined that the Testator had signed the Will voluntarily and  was in a sound mental state at the time of its execution. The Court further established that there  were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, and the allegations  made by the Defendants, such as claims of second marriage and bigamy, were deemed  irrelevant to the central issue of the Will’s validity. 

HIGH COURT FINDINGS:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Civil Court, Jabalpur, of Madhya  Pradesh, the Appellant filed a Misc. Appeal No. 382/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court Of  Madhya Pradesh, (Jabalpur). The Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 25.03.2010 made the  following observations: 

a) In its observations, the High Court meticulously examined the validity of the Will in  question. It placed significant reliance on the proceedings and findings of the Civil Court,  particularly highlighting the crucial role played by the attesting witness, Suraj Bahadur Limboo  (PW2). Further, the High Court affirmed the Civil Court’s determination that the Will had been  executed in accordance with the legal formalities mandated by Section 63 of the Indian  Succession Act, 1925. This included the requisite affixation of the Testator’s signature or mark  and the attestation by witnesses, underscoring the strict adherence to legal procedures. 

b) Furthermore, the High Court echoed the Civil Court’s ruling concerning the Testator’s  testamentary capacity. It concurred with the finding that the Testator had been of sound mind  during the execution of the Will, having willingly signed the document and possessing the  necessary mental acumen to comprehend its implications. Subsequently, the High Court also  emphasized the absence of any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution,  thereby concurring with the Civil Court’s conclusion that there had been no undue influence or  coercion involved. Ultimately, the High Court’s observations served to reinforce the validity of  the Will and upheld the meticulous legal process that had been followed in its execution. 

SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS 

Aggrieved by the Order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Of Madhya  Pradesh, Jabalpur, the Appellant filed a Civil Appeal No. 3351/2014 before the Hon’ble  Supreme Court on 10.06.2010. The Apex Court, in its observations, addressed the central issue  which are as follows: 

OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGEMENT 

(1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Will had been executed in strict adherence  to the legal formalities outlined in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It duly  recognized the presence of the Testator’s Signature on the Will, coupled with its attestation by  witnesses, as stipulated by legal requirements. 

(2) Further, the Apex Court concurred with the Lower Courts’ assessments, affirming that the  Testator, had been in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will. It endorsed the  finding that Bahadur Pradhan had willingly and independently signed the Will, demonstrating  a clear understanding of its implications. 

(3) Thus, the Supreme Court resonated with the consistent findings of the Lower Courts  regarding the absence of any suspicious circumstances encircling the execution of the Will.  Further, the Bench reaffirmed that the Will had not been tainted by undue influence or coercion,  thereby upholding its validity. 

(4) Furthermore, recognizing the pivotal role of witness testimony, the Court highlighted the  significance of Suraj Bahadur Limboo’s (PW2) attestation as one of the witnesses. This  attesting witness’s testimony had played a crucial role in substantiating the authenticity and  legality of the Will. 

(5) Hence, the Court reiterated its stance on the dismissal of allegations made by the  Defendants, including claims of second marriage and bigamy. Finally, the Bench stressed that  these allegations bore no relevance to the central issue of the Will’s validity, further reinforcing  its sound legal standing. 

CONCLUSION:

Thus, based on aforesaid observations, the Apex Court’s judgment in this case revolved around  a dispute concerning the validity of a Will executed by Bahadur Pradhan. After thorough  consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the Supreme Court upheld the  findings of the Lower Courts, thus affirming the Will’s validity. The Bench confirmed the  validity of the Testator’s Will, emphasizing the importance of legal formalities outlined in  Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Courts found no suspicious circumstances  and dismissed unrelated allegations, such as claims of second marriage and bigamy,  emphasizing their irrelevance to the core issue of Will’s validity. 

The Apex Court upheld the Lower Courts’ decision to validate the Will, and as a result, the  Appeal was dismissed. Notably, the Court refrained from addressing allegations of bigamy and  a second marriage, as these matters were deemed irrelevant to the primary issue of determining  the Will’s legality. 

REFERENCE 

1. https://indiankanoon.org 

2. https://www.courtkutchehry.com/ 

This Article is written by Jaishree Sharma student of Rajasthan University; LLB, Intern at Legal  Vidhiya.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *