words per minute
15
Aditya_Patel
00:00
Speed
In Rash Mohini Dasi v. Umesh Chunder Biswas [(1898) LR 25 IA 109] it appeared that though the will was fairly simple and not very long the making of it was from first to last the doing of Khetter, the manager and trusted adviser of the alleged testator. No previous or independent intention of making a will was shown and the evidence that the testator understood the business in which his adviser engaged him was not sufficient to justify the grant of probate. In this case the application for probate made by the widow of Mohim Chunder Biswas was opposed on the ground that the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the material time and he could not have understood the nature and effect of its contents. Thewill had been admitted to the probate by the District Judge but the High Court had reversed the said order. In confirming the view of the High Court the Privy Counci made the observations to which we have just referred.
33. The case of Shama Charn Kundu v. Khettromoni Dasi [(1899) ILR 27 Cal 522] on the other hand, was the case of a will the execution of which was held to be not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. Shama Charn, the propounder of the will, claimed to be the adopted son of the testator. He and three others were appointed executors of the will. The testator left no natural son but two daughters and his widow. By his will the adopted son obtained substantial benefit. The probate of the will with the exception of the last paragraph was granted to Shama Charn by the trial Judge; but, on appeal the application for probate was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the suspicions attending on the execution of the will had not been satisfactorily removed by Shama Charn. The matter was then taken before the Privy Council; and Their Lordships held that, since the adoption of Shama Charn was proved, the fact that he took part in the execution of the will and obtained benefit under it cannot be regarded as a suspicious circumstance so as to attract the rule laid down by Lindley, L.J., in Tyrrell v. Painton [(1894) P 151, 157, 159] . In Bai Gungabai v. Bhugwandas Valji [(1905) ILR 29 Bom 530] the PrivyCouncil had to deal with a will which was admitted to probate by the first court, but on appeal the order was varied by excluding therefrom certain passages which referred to the deed-poll executed on the same day by the testator and to the remuneration of the solicitor who prepared the will and was appointed an executor and trustee thereof. The Privy Council held that “the onus was on the solicitor to satisfy the court that the passages omitted expressed the true will of the deceased and that the court should be diligent and zealous in examining the evidence in its support, but that on a consideration of the whole of the evidence (as to which no rule of law prescribed the particular kind required) and of the circumstances of the case the onus was discharged”. In dealing with the question as to whether the testator was aware that the passages excluded by the appeal court from the probate formed part of the instrument, the Privy Council examined the evidence bearing on the point and the probabilities. In conclusion Their Lordships differed from the view of the appeal court that there had been a complete failure of the proof that the deed-poll correctly represented the intentions of the testator or that he understood or approved of its contents and so they thought that there were no grounds for excluding from the probate the passages in the will which referred to that deed. They, however, observed tha it would no doubt have been more prudent and business-like to haveobtained the services of some independent witnesses who might have been trusted to see that the testator fully understood what he was doing and to have secured independent evidence that clause 26 in particular was called to the testator's attention. Even so, Their Lordships expressly added that in coming to the conclusion which they had done they must not be understood as throwing the slightest doubt on the principles laid down in Fulton v. Andrew [(1875) LR 7 HL 448] and other similar cases referred to in the argument.”
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Pal and others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and another, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 600 has held that propounder has to show that the Will was signed by testator, that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions, that he put his signature to the testament of his own free Will, that he has signed it in the presence of the two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. Furthermore, there may be cases in which the execution of the Will itself is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as, where the signature is doubtful, the testator is of feeble mind or is overawed by powerful minds interested in getting his property, or where in the light of relevant circumstances the dispositions appears to be the unnatural, improbable and unfair, or where there are other reasons for doubting that the dispositions of the Will are not the result of testator’s free Will and mind. It has also been held that in all such cases where there may be legitimate suspiciouscircumstances those must be reviewed andsatisfactorily explained before the Will is accepted and the onus is always on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before it could be accepted as genuine.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Gorantla Thataiah v. Thotakura Venkata Subbaiah and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1332 has held as it is for those who propound the Will to prove the same. 22. The Supreme Court in the case of Murthy and others v. C. Saradambal and others, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 209 has held that intention of testator to make testament must be proved, and propounder of Will must examine one or more attesting witnesses and remove all suspicious circumstances with regard to execution of Will. It has been held as under: