THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 178 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed O.S.No.2535 of 1997 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration to the effect that she is the successor to Sree Satyananda Viswa Vihar Ashram, Sreenagar, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Ashram’), by virtue of a Will, dated 13.02.1995, executed by Sri Satyananda Maharshi (hereinafter referred to as “The Maharshi”) to manage and look after the affairs of the Ashram; and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the Ashram. It was pleaded that The Maharshi established an Ashram at Inamadugu of Nellore District several decades ago and that since quite good number of disciples and followers were there at Visakhapatnam, an Ashram was established at that place also. The appellant is said to be one such disciple from Visakhapatnam and that she has taken sanyasam to devote her life for the objectives enunciated by The Maharshi. The Maharshi is said to have executed a Will, dated 13.02.1995, conferring the right of the management of Ashram upon the appellant and that he passed away on 16.10.1996. She is said to have assumed the management of the Ashram and is looking after the same by conducting ceremonies, preaching devotees and undertaking other spiritual activities in a peaceful and congenial atmosphere. Complaining that the respondents are trying to interfere with the functioning of the Ashram, the appellant filed the suit. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement and respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the same. They alleged that the suit was filed with an objective of grabbing the Ashram. According to them, Sree Satyananda Viswa Vignana Sangam, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Sangam’) has been managing the Ashram for the last 42 years with the blessings of The Maharshi and that the Will pleaded by the appellant is a forged one. It was also mentioned that the General Body of the Ashram at Inamadugu held a meeting on 19.05.1996, presided over by The Maharshi; and that in the meeting, it was announced that the Sangam shall be in- charge of the administration and management of the Ashram at Visakhapatnam. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are said to have attended the said meeting and it was pleaded that ever since then, the Sangam is managing the Ashram. Allegations of harassment and mismanagement are also made against the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 05.06.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.142 of 2000 in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The appeal was allowed on 13.12.2003 and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Hence, this second appeal. Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that his client had devoted her entire life for service in the Ashram by taking sanyasam and that recognizing her dedication to the Ashram, The Maharshi executed the Will entrusting the management of the Ashram to the appellant. He contends that the respondents were under the misapprehension that the appellant is vested with the proprietary rights of the properties of the Ashram and the same is without any basis. The learned counsel further submits that the lower appellate Court totally misdirected itself in the context of examining the question of proof of the Will by assuming several factors and treating them as suspicious circumstances. He contends that the very fact that D.W.2, In- charge of the Ashram at Inamadugu, Nellore District, addressed a letter to the appellant to forward a copy of Ex.A1 and has known the purport thereof, would add legality and genuinity to Ex.A1. Sri M.Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the management of the Ashram was entrusted to the Sangam during the life time of The Maharshi himself and that the appellant tried to assume the management after the death of Maharshi by concocting the Will. He further submits that there are several suspicious circumstances that surrounded Ex.A1 and the appellant was not able to explain the same. Learned counsel contends that the lower appellate Court has pointed out the unnatural aspect of Ex.A1 and has arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of right of the appellant under Ex.A1 and for perpetual injunction against the respondents. The trial Court framed the following two issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the Will, dated 13.02.1995 is true and validly executed by Sri Satyananda Maharshi? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction prayed for? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were filed. Out of them, Ex.A1 is Will, Ex.A2 is subscription voucher in the name of the appellant, Exs.A3 to A6 are the property tax receipts, Exs.A7 to A12 are the electricity bills for the Ashram, Ex.A13 is the document through which The Maharshi purchased the Ashram property in the year 1956, Ex.A14 is the letter addressed to the appellant about the Will by the In- charge of the Sangam and Ex.A15 is the resolution published in a magazine known as Viswa Meemamsa. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B18 were filed. Exs.B1 to B4 are the journals published by Inamadugu Ashram, Exs.B5 to 17 are the pamphlets published by Viswa Vignana Sangam and Ex.B18 is the book released on the eve of jubilee celebrations of Ashram at Inamadugu. In ‘X’ series, Exs.X1 to X4 were taken on record. Ex.X1 is the minutes book of the Ashram, Ex.X2 is page 185 of Ex.A1, and Exs.X3 and X4 are the monthly magazines of Viswa Meemamsa for February and March, 1997. The trial Court answered both the issues in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit. In A.S.No.142 of 2000 filed by the respondents, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: (1) Whether the suit Ashram was being managed exclusively by Satyananda Maharshi and after his lifetime by the plaintiff? (2) Whether Satyananda Maharshi had treated the Ashram properties as his own property capable of bestowing a legacy? (3) Whether the Will Ex.A1 is true and valid? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that she is successor to the suit Ashram? All the four points were answered against the appellant and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. This Court is of the view that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal, namely; (1) Whether the appellate Court can travel beyond the scope of the suit and frame issues, which did not constitute the subject matter of a suit? (2) Whether a will, which is otherwise validly proved, can be treated as invalid on the ground that it did not contain reference to certain events or state of affairs or that it did not indicate the state affairs after the life time of the legatee? The relevant facts that led to the filing of the suit have already been mentioned. The sole basis for the relief claimed by the appellant is Ex.A1, Will said to have been executed by The Maharshi. To prove that Will, she examined P.W.2, an attestor and P.W.3 the scribe. The trial Court believed the evidence and held that the Will is proved. A perusal of the Will discloses that it is only the right to manage the Ashram, that was conferred upon the appellant and not any proprietary rights at all. Nowhere in her plaint, the appellant stated that any proprietary or ownership rights are conferred upon her under the Will. The first two points framed by the lower appellate Court are about the nature of rights, which The Maharshi had exercised over the property of the Ashram. Those questions would have become relevant, if only The Maharshi executed the Will bequeathing the proprietary rights vis-à-vis the property. Ex.A1 does not propose to do so. On a close reading of the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court, discloses that it was of the view that The Maharshi would have entertained the idea of executing a Will, if only he enjoyed the proprietary rights over the Ashram and its property. Neither the appellant nor the respondents expressed any doubt about the total control of the Ashram by The Maharshi. The lower appellate Court has totally misdirected itself in the very framing of the question, which does not at all arise for consideration. The assumption that The Maharshi could have entertained the idea of executing the Will, if only he felt that the Ashram is his exclusive property, is fallacious. Even while answering these points, the lower appellate Court was not consistent. For instance, while answering Point No.1, the lower appellate Court observed as under: “So Satyananda Masharshi treating a particular Ashramam as his exclusive property is not comprehensible. At the same time it can be said that Swamiji was certainly interested in effectively running of the Ashramams including the suit Ashramam even after his lifetime. Then Swamiji nominating some person to be at the helm of the affair of a particular Ashramam after the lifetime of Swamiji is neither unnatural nor violating the ascetic feelings of Swamiji. In fact D.W.2 was named by Swamiji as his successor and to be the president of Satyananda Ashramam after the lifetime of Swamiji by writing down that portion of the resolution in his own hand in the resolution dated 08.09.1985 contained pages at 134 and 135 of Ex.X1. In the same way Swamiji might have decided to name some person who is capable of managing the Ashramam as his successor for Visakhapatnam Ashramam also.” On Point No.2, the answer was as under: “I therefore hold on this point that Satyananda Maharshi did not appear to have treated the Ashramam properties as his own property subject to transfer and passing on the legacy to anyone. At the same time, I hold that Swamiji was interested in effective running of the Ashramam and there is nothing to show that he did not think of choosing some one as his successor for effective management of the Ashramam though he was not directly involved in management of the suit Ashramam. His word of advice must have been considered by the managing committee as a command.” An appeal is treated as continuation of a suit. No limits or fetters exist as to the scope of adjudication by an appellate Court. It can function as though it is a Court of first instance. It can scrutinize the pleadings, re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions without feeling any restrictions as to the scope of its power. However, it cannot widen or restrict the scope of the suit. The contours of adjudication, be it by the trial Court or by the lower appellate Court are determined by the pleadings of the parties. Once the parties have delivered the pleadings, the adjudication must be strictly with reference to them. Even where the arguments are advanced outside the scope of the pleadings, the adjudication must be restricted to the pleadings. In case any necessity arises to add to the pleadings, it is the look out of the parties and not that of the Court. Therefore, the first question framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant. Coming to the second question, the appellant based her entire claim upon Ex.A1. Through Ex.A1, The Maharshi conferred the right of management of the Ashram at Visakhapatnam upon the appellant. It is a matter of record that the appellant was an ardent devotee of The Maharshi, so much so, she has taken sanyasam, sacrificing her family life. To prove the Will, she examined the attestor and scribe as PWs.2 and 3 respectively. Nothing contradictory was elicited from them, in the cross-examination. One of the suspicions entertained by the lower appellate Court about the scribing of Ex.A1 by P.W.3 was that the spacing in page 2 of Ex.A1 was relatively narrow compared to the one in page 1. This was explained by P.W.3 stating that when the scribing of the Will was in progress, The Maharshi wanted that the entire matter be contained in two pages and thereby, lesser space had to be maintained between the lines in page 2. With this, a valid explanation emerged. Still, the lower appellate Court doubted the very presence of P.W.3. Nothing was indicated as to how the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 can be suspected. The lower appellate Court has indicated some other suspicious circumstances. One of it is that Ex.A1 is silent as to the activities undertaken by the Sangam. The relevant portion reads as under: “It is not under dispute that all the persons who are connected with the functioning of the Ashramam were not after any self-enriching activities and their intention is to serve the devotees and to offer prayers to the devotees. They have all long been exhibiting due respect to Swamiji. The words of Swamiji were taken as binding commands. In such case Swamiji would have mention the activities of the governing body and the part to be played by the plaintiff in connection with the affairs of the governing body in running the Ashram if he actually intended to bequeath the stewardship to the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is conspicuously silent as to the executive body or Viswa Viganana Sangam which was to carry on the activities of the suit Ashramam”. After this, the lower appellate Court pointed out one more circumstance, which according to it, would tell upon the un- naturality of Ex.A1. It reads as under: “Another glaring circumstance throwing doubt is the absence of succession after the lifetime of the plaintiff and the rights of the plaintiff as a legatee to nominate any other person to look after the Ashramam.” While dealing with the truth and legality of a Will, the Court not only has to insist that the document be proved as required under law, but also must be satisfied that there do not exist any suspicious circumstance. The first aspect is mostly dealt with by the provisions of the Evidence Act and hardly there would be any element of discretion. If a document is required to be proved in a particular manner and if such a proof is forthcoming, the Court has to take it as proved. The other aspect, however, is virtually unregulated. Hardly any objective guidelines exist to decide as to which factors can be treated as suspicious circumstances and which not, in respect of a Will. Much depends upon the nature and subject matter of disposition, the affinity between the testator on the one hand and the beneficiary under the Will, on the other. One of the well-recognized suspicious circumstances is where the natural and legal descendants are excluded from the bequest. The others include the frail health condition of the testator or the probability of his not being in a position to take decisions on his own accord. If such grounds do not exist, it is not at all advisable for any Court to enter the area of speculation and multiply the grounds by letting its mind free to suspect and imagine every possible aspect. Human mind and intelligence is such that if it is given freedom to imagine as it likes, it may sometimes drift into a path, which has no destination at all. Such a tendency can be controlled if only the process of thinking is controlled by the factors such as objectivity, reason, logic and law. The suspicion that was expressed by the lower appellate Court in the instant case vis-à-vis Ex.A1 was totally unguided, uncontrolled and meaningless. On the one hand, it did not doubt the control which The Maharshi had upon the Ashrams and his intention to nominate his successors and on the other hand, it suspected the genuinity of Ex.A1 on the ground that the Will did not reflect the prevailing state of affairs in the Ashram and that it did not provide for the succession after the appellant. In other words, it assumed to itself, that a Will must be comprehensive enough narrating the every possible detail prevailing as on the date of its execution and that it must provide for a scheme, for eternity. Such results emerge only when the Court deviates from the subject matter of the proceedings and the contours of adjudication thereof. This Court is of the view that the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. While parting with the judgment, the lower appellate Court expressed its concern over the administration of the Ashram. The concern may be genuine. However, it cannot be said that the management of the Ashram by the appellant would hamper its activities. Even when The Maharshi was alive, the Sangam played its own role and there is no reason why the role of the Sangam would in any way be restricted or confined on account of the appellant being in management. The effect of Ex.A1 would be that the appellant would act as a representative of The Maharshi and the activities would go on, as they used to be earlier. Hence, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court declaring that the appellant shall be entitled to manage the Ashram by virtue of Ex.A1 is upheld. So far as the relief of perpetual injunction is concerned, it is directed that the Sangam shall be entitled to undertake the same activities and discharge same functions as it did during the life time of The Maharshi. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.11.2011. Note: LR copy to be marked. kdl