The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the mere registration of a will does not establish its authenticity, emphasizing that the propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The court made this observation while quashing a civil court order that had granted probate of a will, which was under challenge.
Background of the Dispute
The case involved a long-pending dispute between two brothers over their father's will. The father passed away in 1981. One son claimed that the father had executed a will eight days before his death, bequeathing a house in Bapunagar to him. The will was registered after the father's death. The son sought probate from a civil court, but the other son objected. The civil court converted the case into a civil suit and ruled in favor of the first son.
Appeal to the High Court
The other son appealed to the High Court, reiterating his objections. During the litigation, both brothers died, and their legal heirs continued the fight. After hearing the case, Justice J C Doshi found multiple anomalies in the trial court's proceedings.
Key Observations by the High Court
The High Court noted that the trial court had wrongly treated the probate matter as a civil suit and granted a decree, contrary to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. Additionally, the will did not appoint the first son as executor, meaning probate could not legally be granted under Section 222; at best, he could have sought letters of administration.
Suspicious Circumstances
The court highlighted several suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. The father was suffering from advanced jaw and tongue cancer and had undergone surgery. Medical records showed serious malignancy months before the alleged execution of the will. The court found no convincing evidence that he was physically and mentally capable of traveling alone to Narol court, instructing a lawyer, and speaking clearly enough to execute the will.
The testimonies of the first son and the scribe of the will were materially inconsistent regarding their presence and the sequence of signing. The will dealt only with one property, omitted other assets and heirs, contained handwritten dates despite being typed the same day, and was registered posthumously.
Judgment
Justice J C Doshi allowed the appeal, stating: "In light of various suspicious circumstances noted above, the plaintiff was required to remove the same by leading evidence. Mere registration of will does not establish genuineness of will. It is case where propounder failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of will and mere registration would not validate the will which is shrouded in suspicion."
