Leela v. Muruganantham
Background
A man named Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar had children through a first wife and, while that marriage subsisted, also had two sons through a second woman, Leela. Before his death he partitioned his property among his first wife's children by a registered deed, keeping one share for himself. He allegedly left that remaining share to Leela and her sons through an unregistered Will dated 06.04.1990. The children from the first marriage sued, claiming the Will was fake, and both the trial court and the Madras High Court agreed with them.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the Will was not genuine. It found several suspicious circumstances: Leela (a beneficiary) had actively arranged the stamp papers used for the Will despite denying any role, there were contradictory statements about the testator's health, there was no proof the Will was read over and understood by the testator, and the professed place of execution did not match the evidence. The Court reiterated that merely proving a Will was signed and attested under Section 63 of the Succession Act does not automatically make it genuine. Once suspicious circumstances are raised, the person relying on the Will must remove them, which the appellants failed to do here.
Lesson Learnt
A Will that is properly signed and witnessed on paper can still be thrown out if genuine suspicious circumstances surround its making. The law requires the person benefiting from a Will to clear all legitimate doubts, not just tick the formal boxes.