Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Thr. LRs v. Sarjug Singh (D) Thr. LRs
Background
Rajendra Singh executed a Will in 1960 in favour of Sarjug Singh. The objectors to probate claimed that Rajendra Singh later revoked this Will through a registered cancellation deed in 1963, shortly before his death. The trial court accepted the cancellation deed as genuine (based on a handwriting expert and attesting witnesses) and refused probate, but the Patna High Court reversed this, reasoning that the ailing, paralytic testator could not have travelled to the Sub-Registrar's office to cancel the Will, and effectively presuming impersonation. Purchasers of land from the objectors, who had relied on the cancellation, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's finding that the Will was validly revoked. It held that the High Court erred by drawing an adverse inference of impersonation without any such suggestion ever having been put to the objectors' witnesses in cross-examination, and by ignoring unrebutted expert evidence that the thumb impressions on the cancellation deed matched the testator's. The Court also held that the probate applicant could not, for the first time at the appellate stage, object to the "mode of proof" of the cancellation deed (e.g., that only a certified copy, not the original, was produced) since no such objection had been raised when the document was first tendered and marked as an exhibit at trial: an objection to mode of proof is waived if not raised promptly. On this basis the Will was held to have been genuinely cancelled and the appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
If you want to object to how a document was proved in court (e.g., a photocopy instead of an original), you must raise that objection immediately when it is produced at trial, raising it for the first time on appeal is generally too late and will be treated as waived.