Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1981%20Vol.2-P7&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:13:59+00:00

Document:
C. A. (S.C.) 26/77 (F)- D.C. BALAPITIYA 418/T.
of Sri Lanka, 1978, Article 138 (1).
Last Will-Burden on propounder- Suspicious circumstances- Duty of Court in considering such question.
been duly executed and that the petitioner was entitled to Probate thereof.
Court should not interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge on what were all questions of fact.
reversed then the Appellate Court "ought not to shrink from that task".
intended the document to be his Last Willthat the said document had been duly executed according to law.
question of fact for the trial judge.
was entitled to Probate of the Last Will.
(1) Fradd v. Brown & Co. Ltd., (1918) 20 N.L.R. 282.
(2) Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, (1935) A. C. 243.
(3) Munasinghe v. Vidanage, (1966) 69 N.L.R. 97.
(4) Watt v. Thomas, (1947) 1 All E. R. 582.
(5) Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd., (1955) A.C. 370(1955) 2 W.L.R. 418,- (1955) 1 All E. R. 326.
(6) Attorney-General v. Gnanapiragasam, (1965) 68 N.L.R. 49.
(9) Falalloon v. Cassim,(1918) 20 N. L. R. 332.
(10) K. M. Perera v. Martin Dias, (1957) 59 N. L. R. 1.
(11) Yuill v. Yuill, (1945) 1 All E. R. 18329 C L. W 97.
(12) Gunawardena v. Edirisinghe, (1960) 64 N. L. R. 27960 C L. W 40.
(13) S. S. Hontestroom v. S. S. Sagaporack, (1927) A. C. 37.
(14) Mahavithana v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, (1962) 64 N. L. R. 217.
(15) Abdul Sathar v. Bogstra, (1954) 54 N. L. R. 102.
(16) Selvaguru v. Thaialpagar, (1952) 54 N. L. R. 361.
(17) Barry v. Butlin, 2 Moore P. C. 48012 E. R. (P. C.) 1089.
(18) Tyrrel v. Painton, (1894) P.D. 151.
(19) The Alim Will case, (1919) 20 N. L. R. 481.
(20) Guardhouse v. Blackburn, (1866) L. R. 1 P. and D. 109.
(21) Atter v. Alkinson, (1869) L. R. I P. and D. 66520 L. T. 40433 J.P. 440.
(22) Peries v. Perera, (1947) 48 N. L. R. 560.
(23) Samarakone v. The Public Trustee, (1960) 65 N. L. R. 100.
(24)John Pieris v. Wilbert, (1956) 59 N.L.R.245.
(25)Meenadchipillai v. Karthigesu, (1957) 61 N.L.R. 320.
(26) Robins v. National Trust Co., Ltd., (1927) A. C. 515,- (1927) All E.R. Rep. 73.
(27) Harmes and another v. Hinkson, (1946) 62 T. L. R. 445.
(28) Davis v. Maynew, (1927) 96 L.J. P. 140137 L. T. 61243 T L. R. 648.
(29)Sithamparanathan v. Mathuranayagam, (1970) 73 N.L.R. 53.
APPEAL from the District Court, Balapitiya.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with Bimal Rajapakse, Miss P. Seneviratne and Lakshman Perera, for the petitioner -respondent.
and sisters, who are the petitioner and the 1st to 6th respondents -respondents.
death of the deceased, as his only heirs.
26.10.71) a last will duly executed on 31.8.1966?
(2) If so, is the petitioner entitled to Probate of the said last will ?
After trial the learned District Judge has answered both issues in favour of the petitioner.
to discharge the burden which, in law, rested upon the petitioner.
before him: that therefore this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge.
irregularity, which has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties or occasioned a failure of justice."
a Judge of first instance."
governing fact which in relation to others has created a wrong impression."
advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, the Supreme Court should not have set aside the findings of thetrialjudge.
not be sufficient to explain or justify the trial judge's conclusion.
to any satisfactory conclusion on the printed evidence.
heard the witnesses, and the matter will then become at large for the appellate Court.
and I would say that it would be difficult for it to do so where the finding turned solely on the credibility ofawitness.
between the perception and evaluation of facts."
inferences and assumptions. . .".
case, and the Court must consider the materials before the Judge with such other materials as it may have decidedtoadmit.
be drawn from the behaviour of these witnesses, both before and after the matters upon which they gave evidence."
so convinced it is, in my opinion, entitled and indeed bound to give effect to its conviction."
to the approach adopted by Lord Sumner to this question in the case of S. S Hontestroom vs. S. S.Sagaporack,(13),atp.
misunderstanding or disregard of a material fact, or any 'extreme and overwhelming pressure' that has had the same effect".
Another authority, which needs must be referred to in considering this question, is the judgmentof(H.N.G.)Fernando,J.
to be his last will.
The earliest discussion, according to the authorities cited to us by learned Counsel,oftherelevant"wellestablished"
propounded does express the true will of the deceased."
circumstances exist which excite the suspicion of the Court."
unless that suspicion is removed."
Penzance really meant to lay down has been expressed concisely by Lord Penzance himselfinthelatercaseofAttervs.
intended it to be such.
fact of execution from which the knowledge of and assent to the contents of the instrument are assumed.
of the document he was signing."
suspicion and to prove affirmatively that the testatrix knew and approved of the contents of the document."
case made for proving the will". . .
initial suspicion were unfounded the burden of proof which lay on the propounder of the will remained undischarged".
testamentary capacity. Moreover, if a will is only proved in common and not in solemn form, the same rule applies . . . ."
tribunal must always be, in the end, a question of fact."
its contents was laid down in the case of Davis vs. Mayhew (28) at 148.
This principle was once again discussed by Their Lordships of thePrivyCouncilinthecaseofSithamparanathanvs.
the deceased in the sense that he was competent to make the will, is a pure question of fact.
ultimately a question of fact for the trial judge.
deceased and the appellant had, admittedly, been always living together right up to the time of the death of the deceased.
the deceased had married about two years prior to that and who would then have been about 40 years of age. was inexistence.
the appellant and her minor children.
opened the safe. The evidence of Anton on this point is:"
not think that there is room for suspicion on these grounds either.
with his brothers and sisters were at and about the time "A" was signed by the deceased.
of the appellant, and of her two minor children, or occasioned a failure of justice.
the appeal of the appellant is accordingly dismissed, but, having regard to the circumstances of this case, without costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.