Case: Pushpavathi &amp; Others Vs. Chandraraja Kadamba &amp; Others

and return in the evening. In the midday, however, he did not return to his house and it appears that the testator who was a rich and charitably disposed man and a respected Patil of the village must have requested the teacher to take his lunch at his place and that was how the teacher was visiting the Kolke house at noon every day. He continued to be a teacher in that school even after the death of the testator and defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 continued the same facility to him as the testator had done. It is not shown that he was in any way interested in the parties to the suit. In fact he knows very little about the family affairs. The attesting witnesses also are not shown to be so much interested in the defendants that they should agree to the fabrication of the testators Will. Dharampal Kadamba is the resident of the Miyar village and is also now the President of the village Panchayat. He was not a local man. He had no property of his own at Miyar. But it seems he owed his position as the village Patil to the testator. The testator had stopped living at Miyar and had shifted to Irvathoor. Dharampal was asked to live in the Miyar house and it appears that a land and a small garden piece were given to him - the consideration being that he should stay in the place and perform all the Viniyogas it was the testators custom to do. We can, therefore, say that he was a man in the confidence of the deceased testator and it wont be surprising that he was called to attest the Will. The defendants have continued to give him the same facilities as the testator had done and it cannot be said that the defendants have conferred upon him such benefits that he will agree to fabricate the Will. The other attesting witness Anantraj Kadamba who lived in Irvathoor itself is still more disinterested. He was merely a tenant of one or two lands of the testator. He was a tenant before and continued to be a tenant after the death of the testator. One of the lands was on mulgaini tenure from the time of the testator. That means that the tenure was of permanent tenancy. In short, no benefit has been conferred by the defendants upon these three important witnesses which they had not enjoyed in the testators own life-time for several years. It had been contended in the written statement that defendant No. 4, the aged kept mistress, was chiefly instrumental in fabricating the Will with the help of the other defendants, the scribe and the two attesting witnesses. At the time of the argument defendant No. 1 was made the villain of the piece. It was argued that defendant No. 1 after having conspired with the rest to fabricate the Will arranged with the scribe and the attesting witnesses that when the time to give evidence they should say that defendant No. 1 was not present at all at the time of the execution of the Will, so that the suspicion of procuring the Will in his favour would be completely avoided. But the pity of it is that when defendant No. 1, the scribe and the two attesting witnesses were in the witness-box there was not even a suggestion to them that they had conspired to forge the Will and that the Will was forged by them after the death of the testator. The High Court after a detailed consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the witnesses with regard to the execution of the Will are reliable and we have no good reason to think otherwise. 11. On that finding it is not necessary to consider some other small points which were argued in the case. Those points had been argued before the High Court and the High Court, for good reasons, had repelled them all. A reference was also made to the evidence of the handwriting experts. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. C. M. Reghelini, a handwriting expert from Madras was examined to show that the disputed signature was not of the testator. On behalf of the defendants, Mr. C. T. Bhanagay of Nagpur who is a Government Criminologist and Additional Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for certain States was examined as expert witness. He gave his opinion that the disputed signature on the Will was of the testator. Both the witnesses did not know Kannada or the Kannada script. The Trial Court, therefore, rejected the evidence of both. The High Court was not agreeable that on that ground alone their evidence should be rejected. So far as Mr. Reghelini was concerned it was noticed that he had compared the disputed signature of the testator with some other signatures alleged to have been of the testator but which were not proved in Court. When the admitted signatures were shown in the witness-box, he obviously called for additional signatures for further comparison, the implication of which was that he could not make up his mind by a mere look at the admitted signatures in the witness-box whether the disputed signature was made by the person who had made the admitted signatures. Naturally Mr. Reghelinis evidence was of little help. The learned Judges, who apparently know Kannada and also the Kannada script, were inclined to accept Mr. Bhanagays evidence as more reliable. Mrs. Pappu appearing on behalf of the appellants before us contended that there were more pen lifts in the disputed signature than in the admitted signatures which had been compared by Mr. Bhanagay. But Mr. Bhanagay himself when he was in the witness-box was not cross-examined about the same. We have also, for ourselves, scrutinized the signatures as well as we could, and we think that it is not possible to disagree with the view taken by the High Court in this respect.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]4. The Will in question is Exhibit, dated March 10, 1958. The case of the defendant is that it was executed by Shantiraja at about 1.00 p.m. on that day. The Will was written by one P. Venkataramana (D.W. 1) a teacher in the village School at Irvathoor. The two attesting witnesses are Dharampal Kadamba, (D.W. 2) and Anantraj Kadamba (D.W. 3), Dharampal Kadamba is the Patel of Miyar village since 1951 and is also the President of the local village Panchayat. Anantraj Kadamba (D.W. 3), is a resident of Irvathoor and is the uncle of Dharampal Kadamba. The evidence of all these three witnesses is to the effect that the scribe wrote the Will to the dictation of the deceased Shantiraja and that after the same was written the deceased Shantiraja signed the same in the presence of the scribe and the two attesting witnesses. After the signature of the testator, the two attesting witnesses put their signature as attesting witnesses and so did the scribe. If the evidence of these witnesses is accepted as satisfactory, as High Court has done, there can be no doubt that the Will will have to be regarded as a valid Will of the deceased Shantiraja. It is the plaintiffs own case that except for two days before his death in October, 1958, the deceased Shantiraja, though old, enjoyed good health and used to move about in the village. His state of health and capacity to execute the Will on March 10, 1958 is beyond disputeIf, as alleged in the plaint, defendant No. 4 was responsible for the fabrication of the Will with the help of others, she would have certainly seen to it that her daughters also got a large share. The very fact that there daughters were not given any property goes to show that defendant No. 4 could not have been party to any such alleged fabrication. The testator had already married off the daughters, they were well placed in life, and he might have though that after the death of his mistress, defendant No. 4, all the substantial property which was devised by him to her would automatically go to the daughters and hence there was no need for any separate provision. In other words, the High Court is right in concluding that the disposition. In other words, the High Court is right in concluding that the dispositions under the Will were neither unnatural nor unjust10. The High Court has accepted this evidence with regard to the execution of the Will. It had been contended before it that the scribe and the attesting witnesses were not disinterested independent witnesses and, therefore, the evidence should not be accepted. The High Court has repelled that contention and was of the view that the interest of these persons was not such that they would be party to a fabricated Will. Venkataramana was a teacher in the Primary School and did not belong to the village. His village was about 5 miles away but being a teacher in the Irvathoor School he had to come to school every morning from his own village and return in the evening. In the midday, however, he did not return to his house and it appears that the testator who was a rich and charitably disposed man and a respected Patil of the village must have requested the teacher to take his lunch at his place and that was how the teacher was visiting the Kolke house at noon every day. He continued to be a teacher in that school even after the death of the testator and defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 continued the same facility to him as the testator had done. It is not shown that he was in any way interested in the parties to the suit. In fact he knows very little about the family affairs. The attesting witnesses also are not shown to be so much interested in the defendants that they should agree to the fabrication of the testators Will. Dharampal Kadamba is the resident of the Miyar village and is also now the President of the village Panchayat. He was not a local man. He had no property of his own at Miyar. But it seems he owed his position as the village Patil to the testator. The testator had stopped living at Miyar and had shifted to Irvathoor. Dharampal was asked to live in the Miyar house and it appears that a land and a small garden piece were given to himthe consideration being that he should stay in the place and perform all the Viniyogas it was the testators custom to do. We can, therefore, say that he was a man in the confidence of the deceased testator and it wont be surprising that he was called to attest the Will. The defendants have continued to give him the same facilities as the testator had done and it cannot be said that the defendants have conferred upon him such benefits that he will agree to fabricate the Will. The other attesting witness Anantraj Kadamba who lived in Irvathoor itself is still more disinterested. He was merely a tenant of one or two lands of the testator. He was a tenant before and continued to be a tenant after the death of the testator. One of the lands was on mulgaini tenure from the time of the testator. That means that the tenure was of permanent tenancy. In short, no benefit has been conferred by the defendants upon these three important witnesses which they had not enjoyed in the testators owne for several years. It had been contended in the written statement that defendant No. 4, the aged kept mistress, was chiefly instrumental in fabricating the Will with the help of the other defendants, the scribe and the two attesting witnesses. At the time of the argument defendant No. 1 was made the villain of the piece. It was argued that defendant No. 1 after having conspired with the rest to fabricate the Will arranged with the scribe and the attesting witnesses that when the time to give evidence they should say that defendant No. 1 was not present at all at the time of the execution of the Will, so that the suspicion of procuring the Will in his favour would be completely avoided. But the pity of it is that when defendant No. 1, the scribe and the two attesting witnesses were in thex there was not even a suggestion to them that they had conspired to forge the Will and that the Will was forged by them after the death of the testator. The High Court after a detailed consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the witnesses with regard to the execution of the Will are reliable and we have no good reason to think otherwise11. On that finding it is not necessary to consider some other small points which were argued in the case. Those points had been argued before the High Court and the High Court, for good reasons, had repelled them all. A reference was also made to the evidence of the handwriting experts. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. C. M. Reghelini, a handwriting expert from Madras was examined to show that the disputed signature was not of the testator. On behalf of the defendants, Mr. C. T. Bhanagay of Nagpur who is a Government Criminologist and Additional Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for certain States was examined as expert witness. He gave his opinion that the disputed signature on the Will was of the testator. Both the witnesses did not know Kannada or the Kannada script. The Trial Court, therefore, rejected the evidence of both. The High Court was not agreeable that on that ground alone their evidence should be rejected. So far as Mr. Reghelini was concerned it was noticed that he had compared the disputed signature of the testator with some other signatures alleged to have been of the testator but which were not proved in Court. When the admitted signatures were shown in the, he obviously called for additional signatures for further comparison, the implication of which was that he could not make up his mind by a mere look at the admitted signatures in thex whether the disputed signature was made by the person who had made the admitted signatures. Naturally Mr. Reghelinis evidence was of little help. The learned Judges, who apparently know Kannada and also the Kannada script, were inclined to accept Mr. Bhanagays evidence as more reliable. Mrs. Pappu appearing on behalf of the appellants before us contended that there were more pen lifts in the disputed signature than in the admitted signatures which had been compared by Mr. Bhanagay. But Mr. Bhanagay himself when he was in thex was notd about the same. We have also, for ourselves, scrutinized the signatures as well as we could, and we think that it is not possible to disagree with the view taken by the High Court in this respect.