Case: Prakash Soni Vs. Deepak Kumar

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are, that the appellant herein is the husband of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Girls Higher Secondary School Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh; Srimati Mooli Swarnkar died on 18.11.2001, on account of liver cancer and disease of Hepatitis `B. The married couple, i.e, the appellant and his wifeSrimati Mooli Swarnkar did not have any issue, and hence the appellant being her husband and as her only successor claimed to be entitled to receive the retiral benefits, such as, Pension, G.P.F.,Gratuity, Family Welfare Fund, Group Insurance Scheme accountthe appellant filed an application on 7.5.2002 before the Civil Judge,Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), for grant of a succession certificate of his wife late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, so as to entitle him to receive theretiral benefits. The respondents herein, who were the sons of the brother of late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar also laid their claim in respect of theretiral benefits of late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, on the basis of the will, said to have been executed by her on 18.11.2001, i.e., on the day of her death. In other words, the respondents filed counter claim in the application filed by the appellant under Section 372 of the Act. The respondents further claimed, that the deceased had submitted nomination forms dated 16.11.2001 (Ex. D/1 to D/5) to her employer in which the names of the respondents were mentioned as her nominees.3. Learned Civil Judge, Narsinghgarh vide his order dated 9.10.2004 passed in Succession Case No.3/2002 dismissed the application filed by the appellant for grant of a succession certificate, and allowed the counter claim put forth by the respondents. Against the said order passed by the Civil Court, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.before the Additional District Court, Narsinghgarh, which came to be allowed on 8.1.2005 and consequently the order of the Civil Court, dismissing the claim of the appellant and allowing the counter claim of the respondents was set aside. In effect, the Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh ordered for grant of a succession certificate to the appellant. However, the judgment of the Additional District Court was set aside by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as mentioned supra, in Civil Revision No. 63/2005 on 20.04.2006, and the order of the Civil Court rejecting the application for grant of a succession certificate filed by the appellant was upheld. Hence, this appeal.

Reasoning: 7. Curiously, the High Court has not at all discussed the case as put forth by the appellant. We find that the approach of the High Court is one sided. Theof the material placed by the appellant herein before the High Court has constrained us to verify the entire evidence to satisfy our judicial conscience. On consideration of the entire material on record, we find that the will is surrounded by suspiciousis admitted by the attesting witness and other witnesses who were allegedly present at the time of the execution of the will that the hands of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar were shivering while signing Ex. D/6. At that point of time, Srimati Mooli Swarnkar was very weak and she was administered drip. The health condition of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar had deteriorated when the drip was being administered. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the first appellate Court was justified in concluding that the propounder of the will was not successful in proving that the will was executed in a healthy state of mind as well as body of the deceased and without any pressure. The will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances mentioned supra. Similar observation needs to be made in respect of nomination forms also, which were allegedly executed by the deceased just prior to her death on 18.11.2001, i.e., on 16.11.2001. Admittedly, the deceased was on medical leave. The nomination forms allegedly signed by the deceased were placed before the concerned department by the relatives and other family members of the respondents. Upon comparison of the disputed and other signatures of the deceased Srimati Mooli Swarnkar on Ex. P/4, D/7, D/8 and the alleged will Ex. D/6, the first appellate Court on facts has concluded that the signatures found on Ex. D/6 were totally different.9. We find from the records that the condition of the testators mind and body was very feeble and debilitated. The signature of the testator was allegedly taken on the death bed while she was administered drip. The dispositions made in the will may not be the result of the testators free will and mind. In such cases, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy and unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. Since there are many suspicious circumstances narrated above, and as we are satisfied that the dispositions made in the alleged will may not be as a result of testators free will and mind, the Civil Court as well as the High Court are not justified in coming to the conclusion that the will Ex.D/6 is duly executed by the deceased. The respondents being the propounders of the will have failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court regarding due execution of the will. Since the suspicious circumstances relate to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, as well as the condition of the testators mind and the dispositions made in the will being unfair, the judgment of the High Court restoring the judgment of the Civil Court is liable to be set aside.