H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors

CASE BRIEF

Appellants- H. Venkatachala Iyengar

Respondents- B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors.

Decided On: 13.11.1958

Statues Referred-

1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45, Section 47, Section 67, Section 68.
2. Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 59, Section 63.

Facts:

1. In July 1903, Mr. Annaji Iyengar died and left behind one adopted son who is the present appellant of the case and 2 other daughters named Gundamma and Lakshamma. Lakshamma was married to Sadagopalachar who died on 1908.
2. On February 16, 1902, Mr. Annaji Iyengar had executed a registered gift deed jointly in the name of Lakshamma and her husband Sadagopalachar against the property items 1 and 2.
3. Mr. Iyengar also on August 31, 1901 had bequeathed his Rs. 10,320 by hypothecation bonds through an executed will in the favour of Mr. Sadagopalachar and his wife Mrs. Lakshamma. The only express condition was provided in the will is that by the virtue of doctrine of survivorship. Whoever between them survives the other will get the whole of the property.
4. Sadagopalachar was a modest person and thus he had resigned from his job in order to take care of these properties gifted to him and his wife. He also utilized the 10,320 Rs of hypothecations bonds upon the maintenance of the said properties.
5. Sadagopalachar died before his wife Lakshamma and therefore by the doctrine of survivorship and the will, all the properties were therefore transferred in the name of Lakshamma. Lakshamma was the absolute owners of the properties.
6. Lakshamma died after making a will on September 26, 1945. Appellant affirms the will made by Lakshamma and the respondent no1 denies the same.
7. The learned trial court favored the appellants and rejected the claims by the respondents upon which the respondent no 1 had filed an appeal before the High Court.
8. The High Court reversed the order of the trial court and favored the respondents of the case and hence being aggrieved by the same the appellants have preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue;

When there is presence of suspicions on the authenticity of the will, it is valid on the part of the court to be disinclined to treat the document as the final will of the testator?

Contentions by Parties-

Appellant’s Arguments

1. The appellants contended that Mr. Lakshamma had called the appellant one day and told him to draft a will in favour of her as she thinks she is ill. After one year, just after the marriage event of her relative she called the appellant and prepared a will. And the will which the appellant produces has 5 signatures of the testator. Hence it is not disputed fact.
2. The appellant further contented that since the facts are established it is fair upon the court to declare the will as authentic and pass an order in favour.
3. The appellants also contented that according to the established proposition of law that the person who is bringing before the court a will, must establish its authenticity beyond doubt so that the court is satisfied that the will which is propounded is actually the final will of the testator.
4. It was finally argued by the appellant that the dead cannot come back to assert if the will so propounded is her last will or not. Thus, if the court is satisfied as to the authenticity of the will through mathematical precision the should make an order in favour.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Respondent argued before the court that after his father i.e. Sadagopalachar died her husband i.e. Mr. Narayan Iyengar had become the absolute owner of the property and that the contention that her mother Lakshamma had become the absolute owner of the property is false.
2. Further, the respondents argued that bequests have been made from the alleged will of the mother to the appellants son and therefore it is a conspiracy on the part of the appellants to bring forward such a controversial will.
3. They further contended that even if what the contention of the appellants were true then, the mother was very ill at the time the appellants assert the will to be made by her mother. She was unconscious all the time and therefore it is not possible on the account of her mother to be in a state of mind as to understand her consequences of her act and therefore the will which is claimed by the appellants holds no water in the eye of law.

Judgment

The Apex Court’s bench comprising of A.K. Sarkar, P.B. Gajendragadkar and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, JJ. Held the following:

1. It was observed by the court that the Section 67 an d68 comes into play in cases where there is a party who is yielding a will or making a kind of submission upon a will and where he seeks to prove the particular document for its authenticity.
2. It was also observed by the court that if a document is alleged to be proved under Section 67 then, his handwriting to whom it belongs is contended should be proved and Section 45 and 47 of the Act comes into play where it is relevant as to the opinions of the experts and of such persons who were well acquainted with his handwriting
3. It is a mandate under the law to attest the proof of execution under Section 68. It is also a requirement under the law that the document so attested shall not be used as an evidence until and unless at least one person i.e. until one attesting witness has been called in order to verify its authenticity of execution. All these are basic impediments upon the persons who is planning to bring a document before the court to prove its authenticity.
4. The bench also observed that Wills are just like other legal documents except for the distinct necessities that it draws under the Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. The major distinctiveness is the attestation requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As certain to the other documents, mathematical certainty is also expected and an ideal condition for a proof under the wills.
5. Another major feature of the wills is that unlike other documents it is a bit unique. The will voices after the demise of the testator. He cannot come back to the court to assert whether it is his will or not which is being questioned before the court of law. This puts a lot of dignity upon such a document. Thus, when a will is propounded and the authenticity is questioned the court will be prudent into getting into questions as to and the propounder must also prove the same that if it is satisfactorily proved that the will was signed by the executor himself, and the proof as to while he was making such a will was in a stable state of mind and could analyse his actions and the consequences it ensues. If these questions are answered by the propounder then the court should uphold the authenticity of the will so propounded.

Rule of Law-

The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was the proof as to the authenticity of the will of the testator.

Conclusion

In Conclusion it could be said that in this case the Supreme Court through its judgement has laid down a great requirement under the law to be prove as to the authenticity of the will of the testator. An important thing to consider here is that the dead cannot come back to answer the authenticity of his will thus the law has to take up a course in order to ascertain as to the authenticity of the will according to the legal standards.