Case: L. Chamanlal (Dead) by his legal representatives Vs. Ram Katori &amp; Another

2. One Ramanand had two sonsChamanlal and Ajodhya Prasad. Chamanlals son is Kailash Chand. The suit was brought by Chamanlal and Kailash Chand. Chamanlal died during the litigation and his heirs have been brought on record. Ajodhya Prasad married one Sonia Devi. They had two issuesson Manakchand and daughter Makhmali. Ajodhya Prasad died in 1928 while he was still a member of the joint family. His son Manakchand died in 1930 when he was barely three years old. Makhmali was given in marriage to one Shanti Prasad, D.W. 3. Disputes arose between the widow Sonia Devi and the plaintiffs with regard to family property and they were referred to arbitration in 1931. The arbitrators gave an award which was later filed in court. Under thise the suit property and a large amount of cash were awarded to Sonia Devi absolutely. She obtained possession of the property allotted to her3. Makhmali the daughter of Sonia Devi died in 1944 and Sonia Devi died on May 14, 19504. Three years before her death i.e. on June 6, 1947, Sonia Devi who was about 70 years old, executed a Will Ext.1 leaving all her property to her brothers widowed, Ram Katori and her daughter, Kiran Lata. They are Defendants 1 and 2 Ram Katori was given a life interest in the property and after her death Kiran Lata was to be the absolute owner. In the event of her death without any issue the property was to go to her husband. The plaintiffs challenged the Will Ext.I and claimed the property5. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the Will was not intelligently executed by Sonia Devi. In appeal the High Court held that the Will was genuine and intelligently executed by Sonia Devi and, therefore, the disposition in favour of the defendants was quite valid. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the trial courts decree and dismissed the suit.

Court's reasoning:
6. The only point urged before us by Mr. Phadke on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the High Court was in error in holding that the Will Ext.I was intelligently executed. He contended that the witnesses, especially, Shanti Prasad, D.W. 3 who was examined to show that the Will was validly executed was not a reliable witness being very much interested in propounding the Will, secondly that the very contents of the Will, which in his submission was a complicated sort of Will, would go to show that Sonia Devi who was an illiterate pardanashin lady could not have executed the Will by intelligently understanding the contents. In our opinion, there is no substance in either of these contentionsthe contention is that Sonia Devi could not have intelligently executed theWill.We do not see how it could be said that it was not intelligently executed. Both the courts have held that the relations between Sonia Devi and the respondents were so bitter that she was anxious that her property which she had got under award should not go to them.8. The argument was advanced that the Will must have been the handiwork of Shanti Prasad and that it was he who really made the Will and simply asked the old lady to give hern on the same without understanding what it was all about.We find no basis in evidence for this argument. Shanti Prasad was herw and it is quite likely that she had confidence in him. If Shanti Prasad had an eye on the property of himw and had obtained a Will by subterfuge then the dispositions of the property would have been quite different. We do not find any bequest in favour of Shanti Prasad or any of his relations. The fact that she had suggested to Shanti Prasad in the Will that he may help the ladies in the management can only speak of her confidence in him. He has not been given any beneficial interest in the property and the obligations he undertook under the Will were more in the nature of the obligations of an executor. The very fact that aw of the testators confidence who gets nothing under the Will was present at the time of the execution of the Will would, far from creating suspicion, establish that it was a genuism document9. It is true that Sonia Devi was illiterate but that does not mean that she was unintelligent. She had raised disputes with herw with regard to her share in the family properties and had been able to get her share not as a mere life estate but absolutely. As the Will shows, she has been able to preserve that property without much detriment. She had also filed a suit against one Jai Ram Singh and others and obtained a decree against them. A fairly large amount had been kept by her in deposit with the firm Ajodhya Prasad Bhagat Prasad. The dispositions made in the Will also go to show how fair and intelligent she is. There is, therefore, no reason to suspect that she was merely a tool in the hands of somebodyIt may be that she had sought sometimes the advice of Shanti Prasad. But if a widow like her takes herw into confidence that would be no ground at all for suspecting anything. If Shanti Prasad had obtained beneficial interest in the property under the Will that may afford some basis for suspicion. But since he does not acquire any interest in her property the mere fact that he has been charged with the management of the property to a limited extent for the benefit to Ram Katori and Kiran Lata would be no ground to suspect the genuineness of theWill.There is again intrinsic evidence in the Will itself to show that the testator had intelligently followed the Will when it was read over to her. In Para 3 of the Will the testator had directed that the money in deposit with Ajodhya Prasad and the amount of the decree against Jai Ram Singh should be utilized in the first instance for the marriage of Kiran Lata, and, if any balance was left thereafter, the same should be deposited in the name of Kiran Lata and the interest thereof should be paid to Ram Katori. After the fair copy was prepared and read over to her, it seems, she changed her mind a bit with regard to the disposition of the amount. Instead of the balance being deposited in the name of Kiran Lata, she directed that the same may be spent over the construction and repair of the houses which were dilapidated at the time. This change is incorporated in the first note above her signature. Nothing can be more conclusive than this piece of evidence to show that when the Will was read over to her she intelligently understood its contents and, thereafter directed some change at the last moment. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that there is really no evidence of any sort of subterfuge at the time of the execution of the Will or that she had made it unintelligently. It must be further noted that this Will was also registered the same day and Sonia Devi lived thereafter for about three years.