Source: https://mynation.net/docs/68-2015-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:35:50+00:00

Document:
Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Manish Pitale, J.
1. This revision application challenges two concurrent orders passed by the Courts below on an application for grant of succession certificate filed by the applicant under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [for short, ‘Act of 1925’]. The applicant contended in her application that her son Baban Wankhade died on 16-07-2000. She claimed that her son was having strained relations with his wife, respondent No. 7 herein and that only the applicant and her grand-daughters i.e. respondent Nos. 8 to 10 herein were entitled for grant of succession certificate in respect of amounts specified in the application as also securities. It was claimed in the application that respondent No. 7, widow of deceased son of the applicant, had illegally obtained and collected the amounts towards LIC Policy, which were required to be deposited by her along with interest.
7. Shri Alaspurkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the Courts below had committed a grave error in placing the burden on the applicant to prove the said Will dated 05-06-2000, when there was no denial on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in respect of the said Will. It was further submitted that, in any case, one of the attesting witnesses and the scribe of the Will had been produced as witnesses in support of the said Will and there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record to show that the aforesaid Will was a valid document. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Courts below have committed a grave error in disbelieving the said Will and that such adverse findings were based on erroneous appreciation of the evidence and material on record. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Balu Patil and others v. Mohan Hirachand Shah and others, reported at MANU/SC/1138/2015 : (2016) 1 SCC 530, Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, reported at MANU/SC/8404/2008 : (2009) 3 SCC 687, Daulat Ram and others v. Sodha and others, reported at MANU/SC/0969/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 40, Judgments in Civil Appeal No. 5366 of 2017 (Poonnamma Jagadamma and others v. Narayanan Nair and others) and Mahesh Kumar (dead) by Lrs v. Vinod Kumar and others, reported at MANU/SC/0208/2012 : 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 482 and judgments of this Court in the case of Lalita Krishnaraj Parekh and another v. Kirti Jagadish Mulani, reported at MANU/MH/1553/2009 : 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 761 and Hoshang Pesi Hodiwala v. Bonny Behramshah Bhatahena and others, reported at MANU/MH/1663/2014 : 2015(1) ABR 75.
8. Per contra, Shri Vaishnav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 submits that the findings rendered by the Courts below do not deserve any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submitted that once the applicant propounded the Will and sought benefit under the same, the burden was entirely on her to prove execution of the said Will and that absence of amendment in the written statement/objection on behalf of the contesting respondents to raise objection to the Will would not shift the burden. It was submitted that it was a mandate of the statute that the propounder of the Will proves the same to the satisfaction of the Court. It was further submitted that the Courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and material on record to come to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove the said Will, which was the only basis for her to deny the share to contesting respondent No. 7. It was further submitted that, in any case, the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1925 for issuance of succession certificate were necessarily summary in nature and that if the applicant was aggrieved by any findings rendered in such proceedings, she could very well agitate the same in a suit before the Civil Court, which could be considered and decided on its own merits. It was pointed out that there were already two civil suits initiated between the parties, of which one was pending at the trial stage and the other at the appellate stage. It was contended that if the applicant had any grievance, she could very well agitate the same in the said proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10, relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Verma (dead) through Legal Representatives v. Lajesh Saxena (dead) by Legal Representatives and another, reported at MANU/SC/1549/2016 : (2017) 1 SCC 257, K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others, reported at MANU/SC/8352/2008 : (2009) 1 SCC 354, Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross Society and others, reported at MANU/SC/0620/2000 : (2000) 8 SCC 143, Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, reported at MANU/SC/1155/2002 : (2003) 2 SCC 91, M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and others etc., reported at MANU/SC/0019/1969 : AIR 1969 SC 1147 and judgments of this Court in the case of Dinesh Ramchandra Sawant and others v. Shivaji Ramchandra Sawant, reported at 2013(7) All MR 298 and Ashwinkumar S/o. Kanakraj Gandhi v. Laxmidas Bhagwandas Mehta deceased through Lrs. Laxmibai w/o Laxmidas Mehta and others, reported at MANU/MH/0486/2007 : 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 819.
10. In the instant case, the applicant amended her application in order to include pleadings pertaining to execution of the aforesaid Will by her son Baban Wankhade. This Will is crucial as regards the claim made by the applicant because it completely leaves out the widow of deceased Baban Wankhade from any benefits in respect of his estate. It is the case of the applicant that since the relations between deceased Baban Wankhade and his wife (contesting respondent No. 7) were strained, the desire of deceased Baban Wankhade is manifested in the contents of the aforesaid Will. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that since there was no consequential amendment made by contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in their written statement/objection in respect of the pleadings pertaining to the said Will incorporated in the application filed by the applicant, the Courts below could not have “shifted the burden” on the applicant as regards the proof of the said Will.
14. In this context, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the photocopy of the said Will deed at Exhibit-80 did show signature of the second attesting witness and that there was oral evidence on record to show that the said second attesting witness had himself scored out his signature and name in the original document at Exhibit-71. According to him, this nature of oral and documentary evidence placed on record was sufficient to prove the fact that the said Will dated 05-06-2000 had been indeed executed by deceased Baban Wankhade and that the burden on the applicant was sufficiently discharged. The Courts below have taken a contrary view and they have not accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of the original Will deed dated 05-06-2000 at Exhibit-71 shows that the signatures and name of the second attesting witness have been indeed scored out. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 has correctly relied upon Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 to contend that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses and further it has been contended that scribe of the Will cannot be treated as an attesting witness. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwinkumar (supra) in this context. It has been held in the aforesaid judgments that in order to show valid attestation it is essential that two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature; with a view to attest or to bear witness to such fact, each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g, to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness. In the present case, the Courts below have taken into consideration the scoring out of signatures and name of the second attesting witness while arriving at the conclusion that the Will was not a believable document.
15. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also contended that the burden was entirely on contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 to prove that there were any suspicious circumstances to doubt the validity of the aforesaid Will deed. As stated above, the burden would be first on the propounder of the Will, who in the present case was the applicant, to prove valid execution of the Will. Once, this is accepted, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error in exercising jurisdiction while passing orders on the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the applicant. The reliance placed on behalf of the applicant on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court is mainly on the issue that in the absence of specific denial by contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10, as regards the aforesaid Will, the Courts below could not have placed the burden on the applicant herein. The said judgments do not take the case of the applicant any further because, as stated above, it is the propounder of the Will and one who claims benefit under the same who is required to prove the execution and validity of the same in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this context, no error can be attributed to the Courts below in arriving at findings against the applicant while disposing of the application and appeal.
“16. This question was also considered by this Court in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0393/2000 : 2000 (5) SC 336. In this case after having considered the provisions of Sections 370 to 390 of the Indian Succession Act as well as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held that any adjudication under Part X does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding. It has been held that Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act takes a decision given under Para X of the Indian Succession Act outside the purview of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held that Section 387 gives a protective umbrella to ward off from the rays of res judicata to the same issue being raised in a subsequent suit or proceeding. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in this case.
← When appeal can be dismissed for non joinder of persons who were parties before lower court?

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