Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Background
The appellant claimed that Nathu Singh, who died in 1980, had executed a Will in 1973 leaving him certain property in Delhi, even though Nathu Singh had a wife, children and grandchildren who survived him. The appellant obtained a Letter of Administration from the District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, based on this Will, but the Delhi High Court (in a First Appeal from Order) reversed that grant, finding the Will's execution and attestation not satisfactorily proved and the bequest itself suspicious given the family circumstances.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements for proving a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and held that the propounder's evidence of execution and attestation was casual and lacking credibility, and that Section 71 of the Evidence Act (which allows additional evidence in limited circumstances) could not be used to rescue testimony that failed the basic proof requirements. The Court also found the bequest itself inherently suspicious, it was unnatural for the testator to have bypassed his wife, children and grandchildren, with whom he shared a warm relationship, in favour of the appellant, and held these "suspicious circumstances" were not satisfactorily explained. Agreeing with the High Court's appreciation of law and facts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the rejection of the Will, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A Will that departs sharply from natural expectations, bypassing a testator's close family in favour of an unrelated or more distant beneficiary, faces heightened scrutiny in court, and the person relying on such a Will must clearly prove its execution and dispel any suspicious circumstances; vague or inconsistent testimony about how and when a Will was signed and witnessed will not suffice.