Case: D.R. Krishnaswamy Vs. Wesleyan Methodist Mission Trust Association and Others

anything in the plaint of that suit about the will suggested that the will was not in existence on the day the suit was instituted. According to the trial Court all that could be inferred from this circumstance was that the plaintiff was an unscrupulous man but having regard to the other circumstances it would not justify a finding that the will was fabricated. 7. The trial Court further noted that the two attesting witnesses were respectable men who remained unshaken in the face of gruelling cross-examination and that they were "not persons who can be expected to join hands with the plaintiff in cooking up the will". The trial Court also pointed out that Sripadas widow and children who were impleaded as defendants in the suit did not appear to challenge the genuineness of the will. This, according to the trial Court, meant that they impliedly admitted execution of the will by Sripada Rao. 8. The High Court found that the will was not genuine. The very appearance of the document seemed suspicious to the learned Judges. This is what the High Court says on this aspect : The size of the letters and the spacing between the lines in the two pages of the document vary; on the first page the size of the letters is small and the spacing between the lines is uniform; on the second page, the letters are bigger and the spacing between the lines is large. About an inch of space is left between the schedule of the property bequeathed and the concluding part of the body of the will. The document has been written on two sheets of paper in a manner which discloses a deliberate attempt made to adjust the writing to the alleged signature of Sripada Rao. 9. We have examined the documents for ourselves. To us it did not seem that there was an attempt to adjust the writing to Sripadas signatures which appeared on both sheets of paper. The genuineness of the signatures has not been questioned; what is alleged is that the plaintiff somehow got hold of two blank sheets of paper signed by Sripada who was in will was fabricated. The trial Court had found that Sripada who was in full possession of his faculties was not the sort of man who would leave blank papers bearing his signature lying about making it easy for anyone to put them to some use not intended by Sripada. The High Court does not appear to have considered this aspect. 10. Another circumstance on which the High Court finds that the will was not genuine is the incorrect statement made in the will that Sripada had left his residential house for his wife and unmarried daughter. This certainly was a false statement, but the High Court does not take note of the reasons which prompted the trial Court not to take the incorrect recitals in the will as proof of the will not being genuine. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court was reasonable and we are inclined to agree with it. The other important factor that weighed with the High Court related to the promissory note executed by Sripada Rao in favour of the appellant. According to the High Court the suit that the plaintiff instituted against Sripada Raos heirs on the basis of this promissory note can be explained only on the hypothesis that the will was not in existence on March 23, 1960, when that suit was filed. The High Court observes that if the plaintiff had "accepted the legacy which was in satisfaction of his debt, he could not have sued for the debt. It is not the plaintiffs case that he had made the election not to accept the legacy". According to the trial Court, the fact that the plaintiff "instituted the suit suppressing the will may be an indication that plaintiff may be quite scrupulous" but would not "justify a finding that the will was faked". Having considered the facts of the case we agree with the view taken by the trial Court. The High Court was also in "considerable doubt about the alleged borrowings by Sripada Rao from the plaintiff" and held that "if the debt is false, the reasonable inference is that the will is not true". No one has questioned the genuineness of the promissory note executed by Sripada Rao which proves that the plaintiff did lend money to him. Sripada Raos widow and sons filed written statements in the suit brought by the plaintiff upon the promissory note, but did not ultimately contest and the suit was decreed ex parte. The High Court observes that they did not "put up a serious contest". There may have been various reasons why the defendants in that suit failed to contest and we do not see how this fact can be taken as a circumstance against the plaintiff in the present suit; it can hardly be suggested that is was a collusive affair between the plaintiff and Sripadas heirs. 11. The High Court does not refer to the finding recorded by the trial Court that the two attesting witnesses PWs 2 and 3 were respectable persons and that it was difficult to associate them with fabrication of the will. 12. The heirs and legal representatives of Sripada Rao who were impleaded in these appeals as respondents have applied before us for transposing them a appellants. This again is an indication that they do not consider the will as fabricated. However, in view of the order we propose to make in this appeal no order is necessary on this application. 13. It appears to us that the High Court in holding that the will was fabricated did not advert to all the various aspects of the matter considered by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court seems to us to be reasonable and we do not find any valid ground why it should not be accepted. 14.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. We have examined the documents for ourselves. To us it did not seem that there was an attempt to adjust the writing to Sripadas signatures which appeared on both sheets of paper. The genuineness of the signatures has not been questioned; what is alleged is that the plaintiff somehow got hold of two blank sheets of paper signed by Sripada who was in will was fabricated. The trial Court had found that Sripada who was in full possession of his faculties was not the sort of man who would leave blank papers bearing his signature lying about making it easy for anyone to put them to some use not intended by Sripada. The High Court does not appear to have considered this aspect10. Another circumstance on which the High Court finds that the will was not genuine is the incorrect statement made in the will that Sripada had left his residential house for his wife and unmarried daughter. This certainly was a false statement, but the High Court does not take note of the reasons which prompted the trial Court not to take the incorrect recitals in the will as proof of the will not being genuine. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court was reasonable and we are inclined to agree with it. The other important factor that weighed with the High Court related to the promissory note executed by Sripada Rao in favour of the appellant. According to the High Court the suit that the plaintiff instituted against Sripada Raos heirs on the basis of this promissory note can be explained only on the hypothesis that the will was not in existence on March 23, 1960, when that suit was filed. The High Court observes that if the plaintiff had "accepted the legacy which was in satisfaction of his debt, he could not have sued for the debt. It is not the plaintiffs case that he had made the election not to accept the legacy". According to the trial Court, the fact that the plaintiff "instituted the suit suppressing the will may be an indication that plaintiff may be quite scrupulous" but would not "justify a finding that the will was faked". Having considered the facts of the case we agree with the view taken by the trial Court. The High Court was also in "considerable doubt about the alleged borrowings by Sripada Rao from the plaintiff" and held that "if the debt is false, the reasonable inference is that the will is not true". No one has questioned the genuineness of the promissory note executed by Sripada Rao which proves that the plaintiff did lend money to him. Sripada Raos widow and sons filed written statements in the suit brought by the plaintiff upon the promissory note, but did not ultimately contest and the suit was decreed ex parte. The High Court observes that they did not "put up a serious contest". There may have been various reasons why the defendants in that suit failed to contest and we do not see how this fact can be taken as a circumstance against the plaintiff in the present suit; it can hardly be suggested that is was a collusive affair between the plaintiff and Sripadas heirs11. The High Court does not refer to the finding recorded by the trial Court that the two attesting witnesses PWs 2 and 3 were respectable persons and that it was difficult to associate them with fabrication of the will12. The heirs and legal representatives of Sripada Rao who were impleaded in these appeals as respondents have applied before us for transposing them a appellants. This again is an indication that they do not consider the will as fabricated. However, in view of the order we propose to make in this appeal no order is necessary on this application13. It appears to us that the High Court in holding that the will was fabricated did not advert to all the various aspects of the matter considered by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court seems to us to be reasonable and we do not find any valid ground why it should not be accepted.