THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
1 min read
The Supreme Court has held that a will bequeathing property to distant non-relatives while completely excluding the surviving widow is inherently unnatural and gives rise to grave suspicion regarding its genuineness. The Court observed that where a widow, being the sole Class I legal heir, is disinherited without any plausible explanation, courts must subject the testament to heightened scrutiny before accepting its validity.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan made the observations while allowing an appeal against a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejecting the disputed will.
The Court reiterated that where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a will, the burden lies heavily upon its propounder to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that the document was executed voluntarily and with a full understanding of its contents.
In the present case, the Court found several suspicious features surrounding the will. It noted that the testator was an illiterate person, yet the will completely deprived his widow - the sole Class I legal heir - of any share in the property while benefiting persons who were not close relatives. The explanation contained in the will for excluding the widow was also found to be factually incorrect.
The Bench further observed that although the will was registered, registration by itself could not dispel the suspicious circumstances. Material alterations on the reverse side of the registration endorsement had not been initialled, creating doubts regarding the identity of the person who presented the document for registration. These circumstances, taken together, prevented the Court from being satisfied about the will’s genuine execution.
The Supreme Court emphasised that suspicious circumstances surrounding a will constitute a question of fact. Once the final court of facts has, on the basis of evidence, found that such suspicion remains unexplained, a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot interfere unless a substantial question of law arises.
Holding that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had rightly rejected the will, the Bench observed that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of its second appellate jurisdiction by reassessing factual findings that were neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the decree declaring the widow’s ownership and possession of the suit property.