V. Prabhakara vs. Bhasavaraj K (Dead) By Lr. & Anr.(2021); Right to create a will according to one’s wishes

BACKGROUND FACTS:

1. This is a case involving a dispute over a property that belonged to a woman named Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi, who has since passed away.

2. The appellant claims that Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi adopted him as her son and left the property to him in a recorded will (Exhibit P4) that was signed in 1985 and attested by his brother.

3. Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi’s niece, who is the appellant’s sister, brought her to the office of the Sub-Registrar to sign the will.

4. The appellant allowed Respondent No. 1 to live on the property but eventually filed a suit to remove him from the property.

5. Respondent No. 1 produced an unregistered will (Exhibit D1) that was allegedly signed by Ms. Jessie Jayalakshmi in favor of his minor son, which he claims supersedes Exhibit P4.[1]

AT THE TRIAL COURT

• After concluding that the former “will” (presented by the appellant) is valid since it complied with legal requirements, the trial court upheld the lawsuit. The validity of the will presented by the respondent was questioned by parties, including the smudged thumb impression, the suspicious nature of the recitals and signature, a stamp with the date Independence Day (15th August 1986), and the execution of the ‘will’ occurring less than a week before the testator’s death.
• Before the trial court, the respondents admitted that the registered will (exhibit P4) had been executed, but they also presented an unregistered will (document D1) that they said had been signed by the deceased and respondent number 2. Furthermore, they claimed that D1 mentioned the deceased’s and her husband’s mortgage in exchange for a payment of Rs 31,000 in the deceased’s favor.[2]

ISSUES RAISED BY THE TRIAL COURT

• Including the question of whether or not the unregistered will presented by the respondents (D1 exhibit) was forged.
• If the siblings are not included in the will, does that make the will suspicious?
• Does Plaintiff prove to have acquired title to the suit property under the Will 04.09.1985 executed by late Jessie Jayalakshmi?
• What order or decree the parties are entitled to?

AT THE HIGH COURT

• Regarding its suspicions about the subsequent “will,” the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment. The beneficiary’s sister (the wife of respondent number 1) was brought to the Sub-registrar’s office for the registration of the “will,” but the court still had suspicions about the earlier Will because it didn’t make sense, in the court’s judgment.
• Additionally, the appellant had submitted a request for review, which the High Court dismissed on November 23, 2007.[3]
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

AT THE SUPREME COURT

• The original plaintiff appealed to the Apex Court of India. Both sides made several arguments.
• The plaintiff/appellant’s attorney argued that the former Will presented is a registered one and that the fact that the respondent’s wife accompanied the testator to the office for the registration of the Will and there were no objections rose would indicate that it had been properly executed.
• Additionally, it was contended that the High Court should have upheld the Trial Court’s ruling and decision rather than creating suspicion (which the Trial Court did not raise)

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent’s attorney argued that determining whether a suspicious circumstance exists is a factual issue that cannot be resolved by relying on Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. The attorney claimed, citing a judgment, that the first appellate court had sufficient jurisdiction to decide the matter due to suspicions surrounding it.

OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, stated in the case of V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) By Lr. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.1376-1377 of 2010 that the absence of a sibling in a will should not be a reason to question its validity.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined on the following aspects:-

1. No reason for suspicion

According to the court, the first appellate court should have analyzed the relevant evidence rather than choosing an ethical justification. If there are no other suspicious circumstances, the siblings’ exclusion alone would not automatically raise suspicions about the Will. In this instance, there is no reason to be suspicious given that neither the sister of the beneficiary, who accompanied the testatrix, nor the beneficiary’s brother, who witnessed the Will, raised any issue.[4]

•  Was the suspicion entertained by the High Court Valid?

The respondents have not contested the execution of the earlier will, and the latter will also declare the earlier will to have been legally executed. It was also incorrectly assumed that the appellant’s sister’s presence during the registration of the Will strengthened the case for the earlier Will’s legality. The appellant’s siblings’ involvement and subsequent behavior leave no basis for the existence of any questionable circumstances on the validity of the prior Will. The High Court’s exercise, according to the court, is neither required nor legal.

• Can the appellant approach the Apex Court on the issue?

The appellate court’s decision and judgment must be overturned by the Supreme Court since the High Court’s actions were illegal, the court ruled, even if the existence or absence of suspicious circumstances is a question of fact.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

The decree and judgment of the first appellate Court were set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.

OBSERVATIONS

• Exclusion of the sibling from the Will doesn’t make it vulnerable to suspicion

A person uses a “Will” as a tool to carry out his or her own mental will. A person is free to distribute self-acquired property in whatever they see fit under the law (within the bounds of Muslim law). Some people choose to make only one (or a select few) of their siblings the beneficiaries of their estate, leaving the others out. There could be numerous reasons for the same. (For instance – the excluded siblings being negligent about the testator during his lifetime).

The freedom granted by the law to a person concerning self-acquired property would be in jeopardy, and the goal of the legislation would be defeated if the exclusion of siblings made a Will suspicious. The liberty a person has over self-acquired property would be protected by the court’s observation.

1. If there is an unambiguous acknowledgment of execution. It is not necessary to establish it to obtain judicial notice.

The court observed that when a party admits the execution of a document like a Will that is otherwise proved under Section 63 and Section 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Indian Evidence Act, it becomes a relevant fact duly proved without any discretion by the court. In this case, the acknowledgment of the earlier Will’s revocation in the later Will was considered a relevant fact as part of the conduct. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that if the execution is unambiguous, as in the present case where the excluded siblings did not raise any objections, there is no need to prove the document again. This observation would prevent unnecessary delays in the legal system and maintain the stance of the trial court. It would also prevent the Federal Appellate Court from interfering with the trial court’s findings.

• Only where there is a discrepancy in the oral testimony of witnesses can the trial court’s findings be challenged.

The court in this instance took note of a precedent that said that the appeal court could only overturn the findings if the witness’s oral testimony contained contradictions that would undermine the decision as a whole. Yet in the current case, there isn’t a dispute over the prior Will’s legality because none of the parties voiced concern about it. But, the Supreme Court harbored a suspicion that should not be supported.[5]

The Apex Court’s observation by referencing the specific case law would protect the primacy a trial court is granted by law concerning decisions on the question of fact. Additionally, this would safeguard the federal organization that our judiciary needs.

4. Testamentary Court is a court of conscience rather than one of suspicion.

“It (the High Court) has to analyze the relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning,” the Supreme Court declared.

In this case, the High Court adopted a sensitive moral stance in inferring that siblings were left out of the Will, which it shouldn’t have done because our courts are also courts of law, not only courts of ethics.

CONCLUSION

The rule of law is a feature of society that both strengthens and burdens its members. We each have duties and rights. We have both freedom and restrictions. This legal freedom cannot be restricted without a legal guarantee. The Court’s ruling, in this case, upholds the right to create a will according to one’s wishes. To preserve the objective nature of the law, it also cautioned the courts against adopting an ethical approach.

[1] (kaul n.d.)

[2] (live law n.d.)

[3] (bhardwaj 2021)

[4] (LB n.d.)

[5] (desk 2021)

Written by: Unnati Trivedi

Admin