Case: SWARNALATHA &amp; ORS Vs. KALAVATHY &amp; ORS

namely Mannar Reddiar was one of the attestors to the Will. In fact the reading of Exhibit P-1 (Will) goes to show that the daughter Kalavathy was given in marriage to a bank employee way back in the year 1970. According to Exhibit P--1 (Will), the daughter was provided 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery at the time of the wedding. She was also given various amounts at different points of time totaling to Rs.75,000/-. It was further claimed in Exhibit P--1 (Will) that the mother gave Rs.25,000/- to the daughter Kalavathy for the purpose of purchase of two plots of land at Ambattur, in the outskirts of Chennai. The Will also mentions that the daughters daughter was given in marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar. This is the reason why the second son V.M. Sivakumar joined hands with the daughter Kalavathy. Exhibit P--1 also makes a mention about the sum of Rs.40,000/- paid towards the discharge of a debt incurred by Kalavathys husband (son--in--law). 18. Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked all the above aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning. 19. Similarly Exhibit P--2 (Will of the father) contains recitals to the effect that the daughters daughter was given in marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar and that Adhilakshmiammal had left behind a Will dated 30.01.1995. 20. Once it is found that the father Mannar Reddiar not only attested the mothers Will (Exhibit P--1) and once it is found that in his own Will (Exhibit P--2), which is a registered Will, the father had made a mention about the mothers Will, all the suspicious circumstances sought to be projected would automatically fall to the ground. 21. When it was not even the case of the respondents that the testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the High Court found fault with the appellants for not disclosing the nature of the ailments suffered by them. The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. The reasons given in Exhibit P--1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way. If Exhibit P--1 (Will) had been fabricated on blank papers containing the signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion for the father to make a mention in his own Will (Exhibit P--2) about the execution of the Will by the mother. 22. We do not know how the High Court held the delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious circumstance. Exhibit P--1 was executed on 30.01.1995 and the testatrix died on 14.08.1995. The father was alive till 08.08.2000. Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate of the said Will. After the death of Mannar Reddiar on 08.08.2000, the appellants obviously had no support, due to the fact that V.M. Chandrasekaran (husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3) had pre-deceased the father Mannar Reddiar. It is recorded in the impugned Judgment that V.M. Chandrasekaran died in October--1999. 23. The occasion for the appellants to seek probate of the Will arose only when the respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005. Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate. 24. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Exhibit P--2 (Will) and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW--1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter-inlaw at the time of execution of Exhibit P--2, has no basis in law. 25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 544 where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right from H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 . But cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will. 26. It is not difficult for an objective mind to understand the reasons behind the daughter and the second son of the testators coming together. Under both the Wills Exhibit P--1 and P--2, the properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The first son V.M. Chandrasekaran is now no more. Admittedly Kalavathys daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar (second son of testator). Therefore, if the bequest under the two Wills go, V.M. Sivakumars family may eventually receive 2/3rd share of the properties, which is more beneficial for V.M. Sivakumar than getting half share under the Wills. Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked this aspect and started analyzing the Wills with suspicion. Therefore, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is incapable of being sustained.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]17. But each one of the above circumstances, neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion. The signature of the mother Adhilakshmiammal in Exhibit P--1 (Will) is not disputed. It was executed on 30.01.1995 and her husband namely Mannar Reddiar was one of the attestors to the Will. In fact the reading of Exhibit P-1 (Will) goes to show that the daughter Kalavathy was given in marriage to a bank employee way back in the year 1970. According to Exhibit P--1 (Will), the daughter was provided 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery at the time of the wedding. She was also given various amounts at different points of time totaling to Rs.75,000/-. It was further claimed in Exhibit P--1 (Will) that the mother gave Rs.25,000/- to the daughter Kalavathy for the purpose of purchase of two plots of land at Ambattur, in the outskirts of Chennai. The Will also mentions that the daughters daughter was given in marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar. This is the reason why the second son V.M. Sivakumar joined hands with the daughter Kalavathy. Exhibit P--1 also makes a mention about the sum of Rs.40,000/- paid towards the discharge of a debt incurred by Kalavathys husband (son--in--law).18. Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked all the above aspects and proceeded to invent reasons to justify a conclusion that seems to have preceded the line of reasoning.19. Similarly Exhibit P--2 (Will of the father) contains recitals to the effect that the daughters daughter was given in marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar and that Adhilakshmiammal had left behind a Will dated 30.01.1995.20. Once it is found that the father Mannar Reddiar not only attested the mothers Will (Exhibit P--1) and once it is found that in his own Will (Exhibit P--2), which is a registered Will, the father had made a mention about the mothers Will, all the suspicious circumstances sought to be projected would automatically fall to the ground.21. When it was not even the case of the respondents that the testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the High Court found fault with the appellants for not disclosing the nature of the ailments suffered by them. The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. The reasons given in Exhibit P--1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way. If Exhibit P--1 (Will) had been fabricated on blank papers containing the signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion for the father to make a mention in his own Will (Exhibit P--2) about the execution of the Will by the mother.22. We do not know how the High Court held the delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate of the Wills to be a suspicious circumstance. Exhibit P--1 was executed on 30.01.1995 and the testatrix died on 14.08.1995. The father was alive till 08.08.2000. Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate of the said Will. After the death of Mannar Reddiar on 08.08.2000, the appellants obviously had no support, due to the fact that V.M. Chandrasekaran (husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3) had pre-deceased the father Mannar Reddiar. It is recorded in the impugned Judgment that V.M. Chandrasekaran died in October--1999.23. The occasion for the appellants to seek probate of the Will arose only when the respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005. Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate.24. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Exhibit P--2 (Will) and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW--1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter-inlaw at the time of execution of Exhibit P--2, has no basis in law.25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 544 where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right from H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 . But cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.26. It is not difficult for an objective mind to understand the reasons behind the daughter and the second son of the testators coming together. Under both the Wills Exhibit P--1 and P--2, the properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The first son V.M. Chandrasekaran is now no more. Admittedly Kalavathys daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar (second son of testator). Therefore, if the bequest under the two Wills go, V.M. Sivakumars family may eventually receive 2/3rd share of the properties, which is more beneficial for V.M. Sivakumar than getting half share under the Wills. Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked this aspect and started analyzing the Wills with suspicion. Therefore, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is incapable of being sustained.