Dismissed

Anant Krishna Nigam v. Shyam Krishna Nigam

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019SPLA/624/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a suit for probate. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the alleged Will dated 19.12.1991 was invalidly executed, primarily due to material contradictions and suspicion in the testimony of the sole attesting witness examined by the appellant regarding dates and the manner of signing.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree dismissing the suit for probate.

Anant Krishna Nigam Vs Shyam Krishna Nigam — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 624 of 1996

¶4

Appellant :- Anant Krishna Nigam Respondent :- Shyam Krishna Nigam Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Rameshwar Nath, A.B.L. Gaur, Arvind Srivastava, Ashish Jaisawal, Randhir Jain

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri Ashish Jaisawal, Advocate, appearing for respondent.

¶7

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter IX Rule 10 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from testamentary proceedings. Learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal, dated 11.07.1976, has dismissed Testamentary Suit (hereinafter referred to as “TS”) No. 3 of 1993 filed Sri A.K. Nigam, appellant, and decreed TS No. 4 of 1992 filed by Sri S.K. Nigam, respondent, and hence this appeal has been filed in respect to both the aforesaid Suits by appellant, A.K. Nigam.

¶8

The respondent, Sri S.K. Nigam, filed Testamentary Case No. 10 of 1992 (converted in TS No. 4 of 1992) alleging that Dr. Brij Kishore Nigam, the deceased Testator, was his father and executed a 'Will' dated 29.08.1991 in respect of his properties at Allahabad. The said 'Will' was presented for registration in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Allahabad on 01.10.1991 and duly registered. By aforesaid 'Will', Testator has bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties to S.K. Nigam, plaintiff in that suit. Testator died on 11.01.1992 leaving behind three sons including plaintiff, S.K. Nigam and three daughters. Testator did not nominate any Executor. Sri S.K. Nigam, plaintiff in TS No. 4 of 1992 prayed for grant of Letter of Administration, in regard of the Estate of Late Dr. Brij Kishore Nigam on the basis of 'Will' dated 29.08.1991 registered on 01.10.1991.

¶9

¶10

After notice by Court, appellant put in appearance and filed a written statement pleading that 'Will' dated 29.08.1991 was obtained by respondent, S.K. Nigam by practicing fraud and misrepresentation on deceased. Deceased Testator has executed another 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 whereby he cancelled his previous 'Will'. It was further pleaded that property no. 451, Neta Nagar, Nai Basti, Kydganj was self-acquired property of Smt. Bhola Devi alias Suman Devi, wife of deceased-Testator and after her death, property devolved upon sons and daughters of deceased, Smt. Bhola Devi alias Suman Devi. Consequently, deceased-Testator had no right to execute a 'Will' to the extent sons and daughters have shares in the said property and it could have executed 'Will' only to the extent of his share. Appellant claimed to be co-owner in the said property along with respondent S.K. Nigam and that he was in possession of half portion of house and entitled for the same as per subsequent 'Will' dated 19.12.1991.

¶11

Appellant filed another Testamentary Case No. 22 of 1992 (subsequently re-numbered as TS No. 3 of 1993) praying for probate of 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 stating that same was executed by Testator, Dr. B.K. Nigam, by which all movable and immovable property of deceased were left to his two sons namely, S.K. Nigam and A.K. Nigam. Subsequent 'Will' had cancelled earlier one and 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 being the last 'Will', Testament is entitled to be executed.

¶12

Learned Single Judge formulated following issues in TS No. 3 of 1993 filed by appellant A.K. Nigam:

¶13

“1. Whether the alleged will dated 19.12.1991 was validly executed and was the last will and testament of the testator? 2. Whether the alleged will dated 19.12.1991 was a forged and fictitious document?

¶14

3. Whether the present suit for grant of alleged will dated 19.12.1991 is maintainable?

¶15

4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?”

¶16

In TS No. 4 of 1992 filed by respondent, S.K. Nigam, learned

¶17

¶18

Single Judge framed following issues:

¶19

“(1) Whether the alleged will dated 29.8.1991 registered on

¶20

1.10.1991 was validly executed and was the last will and testament of the testator?

¶21

(2) Whether the alleged will dated 29.8.1991 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation?

¶22

(3) Whether the alleged will dated 29.8.1991 was subsequently cancelled by the alleged will dated 19.12.1991?

¶23

(4) Whether the petition for letters of administration filed by the plaintiff S.K. Nigam was maintainable ?

¶24

(5) Whether the plaintiff S.K. Nigam is entitled to the relief prayed ?”

¶25

Learned Single Judge has held that 'Will' dated 29.08.1991 has been validly proved and it could not be proved that it was executed on account of fraud or misrepresentation played by respondent S.K. Nigam. With respect of 'Will' dated 19.12.1991, it has been held that to prove the said 'Will', appellant, A.K. Nigam, has himself examined as DW-1 and one Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal as DW-2, who was one of the attesting witnesses. Noticing material contradiction in the statements of attesting witnesses, learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 is highly suspicious and cannot be said to be validly executed. It has recorded finding as under:-

¶26

“Consequently, on the basis of the evidence on record, I hold that the will dated 29.8.1991 propounded by the plaintiff S.K. Nigam was validly executed and was the last will and testament of the testator, the said will was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and was not cancelled by the alleged will dated 19.12.91. It also is shrouded in suspicion and cannot be held to be validly excused.”

¶27

Consequently, learned Single Judge has decreed TS No. 4 of 1992 of respondent S.K. Nigam and dismissed TS No. 3 of 1993 filed by appellant.

¶28

¶29

Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for appellant contended that finding recorded by learned Single Judge that 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 was not validly executed being highly suspicious, is perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶30

The only question up for consideration in this appeal is “whether appellant has discharged his burden to prove that 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 was validly executed by deceased-Testator, Dr. B.K. Nigam or not.”

¶31

A 'Will' has to be proved in the manner provided in Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1925”). It reads as under:

¶32

“ 63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. -Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-

¶33

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will , or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

¶34

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

¶35

(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will , in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”

¶36

¶37

Section 63 provides procedure for execution of unprivileged 'Will'. Clause (c) clearly says that 'Will' shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen Testator, sign or affix his mark, to the 'Will'. It has been held that attestation in accordance with Section 63 (c) of Act, 1925 is mandatory and in absence of attestation in accordance therewith, it cannot be said that 'Will' has been properly attested.

¶38

In Moonga Devi and others Vs. Radha Ballabh AIR 1972 SC 1471 , Court said:

¶39

“It is not merely the genuineness of signatures on which the proof of the execution of the will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act depends. It has to be proved that the will was attested in accordance with Clause (c) of that section.”

¶40

(emphasis added)

¶41

Same issue came up for consideration in Kashibai and another Vs. Parwatibai and others (1995) 6 SCC 213 . Court referring to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1872”) observed that it relates to the proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Admittedly, a Deed of Will is one of such documents which necessarily is required by law to be attested. Section 68 of Act, 1872 states, if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

¶42

What is required under Section 63 of Act, 1925 is attestation by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen Testator sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in presence of and by the direction of the Testator or has received a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or of the signature of such other person and each of the witness shall sign the Will in the presence of Testator. “Attestation: is not the same thing as

¶43

¶44

“execution”. "Attestation" and "execution" are two different acts one following the other. There can be no valid execution of a document which under the law is required to be attested, without the proof of its due attestation. If due attestation is not proved, the fact of execution document is of no avail. Court in Kashibai and another Vs. Parwatibai and others (supra) referred to Section 63 of Act, 1925 and said:

¶45

“Clause (C) of Section 63 provides that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each one of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark on the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses should sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”

¶46

Court then referred to definition of expression “attested”, contained in Section-3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) which reads as under:

¶47

“3. "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such/Witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” (emphasis added)

¶48

¶49

Then in respect of what is required for attestation and to prove attestation, Court said:

¶50

“Having regard to the aforementioned definition an attesting witness is a person who in the presence of an executant of a document puts his signature or mark after he has either seen the executant himself or someone on direction of the executant has put his signature or affixed his mark on the document so required to be attested or after he has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or the signature or mark of such other person.”

¶51

(emphasis added) 19. Court Kashibai and another Vs. Parwatibai and others (supra) observed that as a matter of fact, none of attesting witness had deposed that executor has signed the 'Will' before them and that being so, attestation was not proved in law resulting in that even execution of 'Will' was not proved.

¶52

It is true that a witness while deposing statement may not use the language of Section to prove requisite merits but then something which is required by law must be stated in a manner which may be construed by a person of ordinary prudence that it satisfies requirement of law.

¶53

Again the question of validity of 'attestation' and how it will be proved, came up for consideration in Nagulapati Lakshmamma Vs. Mupparaju Subbaiah 1998 (2) SCALE 705 . After referring to Section 63 of Act, 1925 Court made a distinction between 'Testator' and 'Attestors' in the matter of signing 'Will' and said:

¶54

“The Section makes a vital distinction between the testator and the attestors in the matter of signing the Will. The testator may sign or affix his mark himself or direct some other person to sign in his presence. The reason for such a provision is quite obvious. Many a time, people who are desirous of making testamentary dispositions may be physically incapacitated from

¶55

¶56

signing their names or affixing their marks on account of illness or other causes. Such persons should not be deprived of an opportunity of making a Will. Such persons can instead of signing or affixing their marks themselves can direct some other person to sign in their presence. But in the case of attestors such an enabling provision is absent. The section expressly states that each of the witness shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. The privilege or power of delegation, if we may say so, is not available to the attesting witnesses under the section. When the same section makes a distinction expressly between a testator and an attestor it is not possible to accept the contention that an attestor can also direct some other person to sign or make a mark on his behalf. If a witness to the execution of the will chooses to do so, he is not an attesting witness as there is no attestation by him as contemplated by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Consequently, he will not be an attesting witness for the purpose of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

¶57

(emphasis added)

¶58

Court then proceeded to hold that expression 'attestation' in Section 63(c) of Act, 1925 is same as is the definition in Section 3 of Act, 1882 and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the attesting witness should either sign or affix his thumb impression and thereafter prove the same himself.

¶59

The statutory provisions discussed above, make it clear that attesting witness must have 'seen' Testator to sign or affix his mark or his Delegate. The word 'seen' has its own relevance and consequences. If an attesting witness has not seen Testator signing or affixing his mark on the document, he cannot be said to be an attesting witness and it cannot be said that document was validly attested.

¶60

In the light of above exposition of law, we propose to look into the evidence of DW-2, Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal, who has been

¶61

¶62

examined as one of the two attesting witnesses of 'Will' dated 19.12.1991, whether he has proved the 'Will' in the manner as required under Section 63 of Act, 1925. In his examination-in-chief, DW-2 initially said that the 'Will' was signed by Testator and two attesting witnesses in presence of all three and relevant part of statement reads as under:

¶63

^^th gkWa] 19-12-91 dks eSa dqN nok nsus Mk0 ch0ds0 fuxe ds ?kj x;k Fkk mUgksaus eq>ls iwNk fd vki dy dksbZ le; eq>dks ns ldsaxs eSa vius tk;nkn ds ckjs esa dqN fy[kk i<+h djuk pkgrk gwWa ftlds fy, vkidks FkksM+s le; ds fy, dpsgjh tkuk iM+sxkA eSaus viuh lEefr ns nhA nwljs fnu 12 cts djhc og esjh nqdku ij vk;s vkSj eq>s pyus ds fy, dgk vkSj ;g Hkh dgk fd ,d vkSj xokg dh vko';drk iM+sxh fygktk eSa vius eqykfte lrh'k dqekj ekyoh; dks vxj ys py lds rks lgqfy;r gksxhA blds ckn eSaus Mk0 lkgc vkSj lrh'k dks fjD'ks ij dpsgjh ds fy, Hkst fn;k vkSj Lo;a nqdku cUn djds dpsgjh ds QkVd ij igqapk FkksM+h nsj ckn Mk0 lkgc vkSj lrh'k ogka igqap x;s fQj ge rhuksa odhy lkgc ds cLrs ij dpsgjh esa [kijSy ds ikl igqaps ogka MkDVj lkgc us odhy lkgc ls vius olh;r ds ckjs esa ckrphr dh vkSj muds funsZ'k ij olh;r ds izk:i odhy lkgc us rS;kj fd;k vkSj fQj mldks Vkbi djok;k x;k izk:i dks vkSj Vkbi lq/kk olh;r dks MkDVj lkgc us i<+k vkSj mlds ckn ml ij ge rhuksa nLr[kr fd;sA odhy lkgc ls MkDVj lkgc us ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd blds igys esjs cM+s yM+ds us fy[kok fy;k gS ftldks eSa dSfUly djuk pkgrk gwWa blfy, izk:i esa odhy lkgc us bl ckr dh Hkh ftdj dj nhA

¶64

iz0&Vkbi gks tkus ds ckn Mk0 c`t fd'kksj us bl olh;r ukesa ij vki nksuksa xokgku ds lkeus nLr[kr fd;s \ m0& th gkaA

¶65

iz0&vkSj vki nksuksa xokgksa us Mk0 c`t fd'kksj fuxe ds lkeus bl olh;r ij gLrk{kj fd;s\ m0& th gkaA**

¶66

“Yes, on 19.12.1991 I had gone to Dr B.K. Nigam's house to

¶67

¶68

give medicines. He said to me, “Can you give me some time tomorrow. I want to do some paperwork regarding my property, for which I shall have to go to Kutchery for some time.” On this I gave my consent. Next day at around 12 o' clock he came to my shop and asked me to accompany him and to take along my employee Satish Kumar Malviya because there may be requirement of one more witness. Thereafter, I sent doctor saheb and Satish to kutchery by a rickshaw and after closing my shop I reached the kutchery entrance. After some time , the doctor saheb and Satish reached there. Therefore, all three of us reached at the advocate’s table near tiled shade where doctor saheb had a discussion with the advocate regarding will; and on his instruction, the advocate prepared draft of the will which was got typed. Doctor saheb read the draft of the typed will and all three of us signed the same. The doctor saheb also asked the advocate to get cancelled the previous will, which his elder son got executed. Due to same the advocate mentioned this in the draft.

¶69

Ques- Whether Dr Brij Kishore after having this will typed, signed it in presence of both of you witnesses ? Ans: Yes .

¶70

Ques- Whether both of you witnesses signed this will in presence of Dr Brij Kishore Nigam?

¶71

Ans: Yes .” (English Translation by Court) (emphasis added)

¶72

However, in cross-examination, he changed his statement and said that Dr. B.K. Nigam did not come on 19.12.1991 asking him to accompany to Kutchery but came on 18.12.1991. We may reproduce the relevant part of cross-examination as under:

¶73

^^iz0&19-12-91 dks oks vki dh nqdku esa nok [kjhnus vk;s Fks ;k ;g dgus vk;s Fks fd dy dpsgjh pyuk gS\

¶74

m0& 18-12-91 dks mUgksaus eq>s dpsgjh pyus ds fy, dgk Fkk vkSj 19-1291 dks oks nqdku ij eq>s ysus ds fy, vk;s FksA

¶75

¶76

iz0&vkius vius c;ku [kkl es ;g ckr dgk gS fd fuxe lkgc 19-12-91 dks nqdku ij vk;s Fks fd ;g dgus ds fy, fd dy dpsgjh pyuk gSA D;k ;g ckr lgh gS\

¶77

m0& ;g ckr 18-12-91 dh gSA 19-12-91 dh ugha gSA ;g ckr mUgkasus eq>s vius ?kj ij dgh Fkh fd dpsgjh pyuk gS esjs nqdku ij ugha A**

¶78

“Ques- On 19.12.91 whether he had come to your medical shop to purchase medicines or to make request for going with him on the next day?

¶79

Ans- On 18.12.91 he had asked me to accompany him to kutchery; and on 19.12.91 he had come to the shop to take me along.

¶80

Ques- You have stated in his examination in chief that Nigam saheb had come to the shop on 19.12.91 for requesting you to accompany him to the kutchery. Is it true?

¶81

Ans- This episode happened on 18.12.91, not on 19.12.91. He had stated the fact regarding accompanying me to the kutchery in his residence, not in the shop. ” (emphasis added)

¶82

(English Translation by Court)

¶83

When statement of DW-2 that the stamp was purchased on the same date and thereafter 'Will' was drafted by Counsel and then Testator and attesting witnesses signed was further cross examined by showing back of stamp papers which mentioned date of sale of stamp paper as 11.12.1991, he said as under:

¶84

^^iz0&xokg dks dk0 la0 ,&5 ¼Vh0,l0&3@93½ fn[kykdj iwNk fd bldks ns[kdj crykbZ;s fd igys ist ds ihNs LVkEi fcdzsrk us LVkai dkxt cspus dh rkjh[k D;k fy[kk gS \

¶85

m0&xokg us dkxt ns[kdj crk;k fd bl ij 11&12&91 fy[kk gqvk gSA **

¶86

“Ques- Showing paper no A-5 (T.S.-3/93) to the witness, he was asked to see it and to tell him what date was mentioned by the stamp vendor on the back of its first page ?

¶87

¶88

Ans- Seeing the paper, the witness stated '11.12.91' being mentioned thereon .” (English Translation by Court)

¶89

(emphasis added)

¶90

This date on stamp paper belies the entire statement given by DW-2 to explain the manner in which 'Will' was prepared and signed and learned counsel for appellant, when questioned, could not give any satisfactory reply about this serious discrepancy. This fact has been noticed by learned Single Judge also to record a finding that statement of DW-2 is wholly suspicious inasmuch when stamp paper was already purchased on 11.12.1991, the entire story set up by DW-2 explaining the manner in which 'Will' was prepared after purchase of stamp papers on 19.12.1991, stands belied, and to explain date of purchase of stamp paper, no other witness has been examined on behalf of appellant.

¶91

It is true that though alleged 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 was intended to be registered, but not registered and it has rightly been argued that it will make no difference but still proof of 'Will' in the manner as provided is necessary. In fact, a 'Will' is treated differently for the purpose of proof.

¶92

In the context of 'Will', particularly when it was a registered document, though not compulsorily registrable under the statute, Privy Council in Gopal Das and another Vs. Tri Thakurji and others, AIR 1943 PC 83 , referring to Section 60 of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1908") and Section 63 of Act, 1925, said, that even if endorsement of Registrar made under Section 60(2) of Act, 1908 is proved, it remains to be shown that the person admitting execution before Registrar was the same person, i.e., the executor. The registration of 'Will' does not create any presumption of its genuineness, which is to be proved independently and statement of the Registrar is only a piece of evidence which is to be assessed to judge how far it proves that the execution of 'Will' is in accordance with Section 63 of Act, 1925. This view has been referred to and

¶93

¶94

reiterated in Karri Nookaraju Vs. Putra Venkatarao and others, AIR 1974 AP 13; Labh Singh and others Vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1984 P&H 270; and, Baru Ram and others Vs. Smt. Kishani Devi, 1993(1) Shim.L.C. 80 .

¶95

Apex Court had an occasion to look into this aspect in H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 and said that one of the important features which distinguishes 'Will' from other documents is that the 'Will' speaks from the date of death of the Testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, Testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his 'Will' or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question, whether the document propounded is proved to be the last 'Will' and testament of the departed testator. Court thus held that the propounder of 'Will' must prove, (1) that the 'Will' was signed by Testator in a sound and disposing state of mind duly understanding the nature and effect of disposition and he put his signature on the document of his own free will; (2) when the evidence adduced in support of the 'Will' is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of Testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder; and, (3) if a 'Will' is challenged as surrounded by suspicious circumstances, all such legitimate doubts have to be removed by cogent, satisfactory and sufficient evidence to dispel suspicion. Court also said that onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts indicated therein.

¶96

In Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Kartar Kaur, 1994 SCC (5) 135 it was observed that decision on due execution of will, strictly speaking, is not primarily arriving at a finding of fact, as it has an admixture of law due to the specific requirements of Section 63 of Act, 1925 towards due execution. A method is provided in which a 'Will' shall be duly executed, i.e., it shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each

¶97

¶98

of whom has seen the Testator sign or affix his mark to the 'Will' or has seen some other person sign the 'Will', in the presence and on direction of Testator, or has received from the Testator, a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the 'Will' in presence of the Testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of the attestation shall be necessary. In the matter of proof of a 'Will' Section 68 of Act, 1872 enjoins that a document, if required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called for the purpose proving its execution.

¶99

Then again the matter came to be considered in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, AIR 2007 SC 614 and Court said:

¶100

"33. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. (See Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Shedage 2002(1) SCR 132 and Sridevi and others Vs. Jayaraja Shetty and others, AIR 2005 SC 780). Subject to above, proof of will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document."

¶101

¶102

In the case in hand, once out of two attesting witnesses, only one was examined and his statement was found suspicious and untrustworthy, the 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 stood unproved and learned Single Judge has rightly held that 'Will' dated 19.12.1991 is highly suspicious having not been proved to be genuine and, therefore, has rightly non suited the appellant.

¶103

No other point has been argued.

¶104

In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Dt. 08.01.2019 Akram/PS

Anant Krishna Nigam v. Shyam Krishna Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Krishna Nigam v. Shyam Krishna Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chet Singh Vs Official Liquidator Allahabad

C/M Basant Kanya Inter College Thru Manager and Another Vs Dist Inspector of Schools and Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh and Otherts Vs U.P. State Cement Corp. Ltd. Thru Official Liquidator and Ors.

Phool Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandrajeet and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Dutt Paliwal Vs Pushpa Paliwal