Facts
- The testatrix dies leaving behind two daughters and a son, Kavita Kanwar, Pamela Mehta and Prithviraj Manik, Kavita is the main beneficiary and executer of the will with certain conditions. She filed a petition for will probate before the trail court.
- Pamela, the elder sister of Kavita as per the clauses of the will she was to be given place of residence. She prima facie didn’t file a written statement but later on, as the proceeding goes on she also files an written statement before the trail court.
- Prithviraj Manik, the son of the testatrix, by way of bequeath he has been given credit balance present in the bank account and it was clarified that he shall not inherit any immoveable property or any part or potion of the same. He also had filed his written statement.
- The property in question was situated in Delhi consisting of a ground floor, first floor, terrace, annex block of garage and servant quarter, which belonged to the father of contesting parties. The father gifted the ground floor to Kavita through a registered gift deed on January 2001.
- The father of the contesting parties bequeathed the rest property i.e. 1st floor, terrace, annex block of garage and servant quarters in favor of his wife Amarjeet Manik through a registered will in February 2001.
- After the death of the father, the mother of the contesting parties becomes the owner of the property. Later on, the mother executed the will and the will contain varieties of disputes founded in the will.
- The contested will is drawn up in two pages. It was partly holo graphed document in manner that is opening and concluding passages or clauses are handwritten where as other passage or clauses are in electronic print.
- The appellant in her petition for probate asserted that only after reaching her mother’s house on given day, she came to know that her mother was executing a will. She further stated that she was unaware of the content of the will and she also mentions that she had good relation with her and her parents have special love and affection towards her. The respondents contented that their mother was not even 10th pass and do have cordial relations with her mother.
- The elder sister also filed a separate application under section 151 of the Civil Procedure code of India for seeking cross examination of the appellant and she alleged that the page of will was concealed by her sister, the application moved in was rejected. As for third appellant submitted that they are fabricating about the third page mentioned.
Held
Triall Court
The trial court was suspicious of the contents of the contested will on the following points
- The executor is the major beneficiary.
- There is exclusion of the son from immoveable property.
- The elder daughter virtually did not get any substantial share.
- The court was also not satisfied about the manner of writing and execution as the testatrix was not literate enough and the will was written using technical and legal terminology which was not possible for a layman to know. The will also contains some traces of pencil which make it suspicious.
- In the view of the court, the attesting witnesses are not reliable and there is a possibility that they are bribed.
- There were also vague recitals in the will.
- There is contradiction in the statements made by the witnesses.
On the above grounds the trial court dismissed the petition of Kavita.
High court
The high court dismisses the appeal filed by the aggrieved. The high court upheld the decision of the trail court.
Supreme Court
The appeal filed is dismissed and the Supreme Court held that there is enough and cogent reason to affirm the findings of the trial court and high court that it cannot be said that the testatrix executed and signed the will after understood the meaning of the contents and effects. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.