Murthy & Ors. v. C. Saradambal & Ors.
Background
After a man died in 1978, his daughter-in-law sought Letters of Administration based on a will that purportedly left the family house entirely to her late husband (the deceased's son), excluding his two daughters. The daughters contested the will as a forgery, pointing out that it surfaced only fifteen years after the death, and only after they had filed a partition suit, that the testator was bedridden and paralysed in his final months, and that the signatures on the will did not match his signatures on other documents. The trial court dismissed the probate suit, but the High Court's Division Bench reversed that decision in a brief, unreasoned order.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will in detail: the fifteen-day gap between its execution and the testator's death, the mismatched signatures, the son's lifelong unawareness of the will despite being a practising advocate, the missing scribe, and contradictions between the witnesses' testimony. It held that the propounder of a will bears the burden of removing all such suspicious circumstances through cogent evidence, which had not been done here. The Court also criticised the High Court for reversing the trial court's detailed findings without giving any real reasons, reaffirming that an appellate court must explain itself, especially when overturning a trial court's factual findings. It restored the trial court's dismissal of the probate suit.
Lesson Learnt
A will surrounded by genuine suspicious circumstances, unexplained delay, mismatched signatures, or an unnatural exclusion of natural heirs, will not be accepted by courts unless the person relying on it offers solid, convincing proof to dispel those doubts.