Drawing Contrary Hypothesis Antithetical To Testator's Intent Not Justified When Valid Execution Of Will Is Proved: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The High Court was considering a Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge-I, affirming the judgment of the Civil Judge, Junior Division.

The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held, “Once the valid execution of Will stood proved and the suspicion stood removed, then to draw any contrary hypothesis that is antithetical to the intent of the testator, will not be justified. In such circumstances, it will be preposterous to unnecessarily doubt the intent behind execution of the Will.”

Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate G.D. Verma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellants, along with their mother Pampo Devi (now deceased) filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. II, Solan, against the respondents with respect to the estate left behind by Anokhi Ram. The first original plaintiff Pampo Devi was the wife, and plaintiffs 2 to 4 (appellants) are the daughters of Anokhi Ram. Another daughter of Anokhi Ram was named Prema Devi (now deceased), who was married to the fourth defendant Gopal. Prema Devi had predeceased her mother, Pampo Devi. The first three Defendants are the daughters of Prema Devi and defendant Gopal.

By virtue of the Will of 1983, Anokhi Ram bequeathed his entire immovable property in favour of Prema Devi and her husband Gopal (fourth defendant). Anokhi Ram died, and the mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate of Anokhi Ram was attested, as a mutation, in favour of Prema Devi and her husband in terms of a Will of 1983. Prema Devi had also executed a Will, and on her death her estate devolved upon her daughters and husband in terms of said Will. The plaintiffs, instituted the suit for a declaration to the effect that the Will of Anokhi Ram was illegal. The Will executed by Prema Devi was also sought to be declared as wrong, null and void. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court except the findings on the issue of limitation. It was in such circumstances that the matter reached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that both the Courts had held the execution of the will was validly proved. The deposition made by the defendant witness Netar Singh was found to be trustworthy and convincing. The Bench noticed that the plaintiffs had not been able to point out even a single circumstance which may suggest that the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts with respect to the execution of Will were perverse.

“I have also not found any material on record from which an inference as to the illegality or perversity in the findings of both the Courts can be drawn. Thus, no interference is required with respect to the findings of fact, with respect to execution of Will, concurrently recorded by both the Courts”, it held.

The Bench also found sufficient explanation on record for the postponement of the registration for the next date. “The fact that Sub Registrar had left the office by the time the Will was executed has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs”, it stated while also adding, “No doubt, the proof of execution of Will does not absolve the propounder of the burden to remove the suspicion, if any, surrounding such execution. The existence of suspicious circumstance is a question of fact and its assessment cannot be made by a straight jacket formula.”

On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench noticed that the execution of the Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reasons to establish trust could not be said to be unnatural. “The choice of testator for choosing one of the daughters and son-in-law to inherit the entire property stands duly explained and accordingly the defendants have been able to discharge the burden”, it held.

The Bench thus dismissed the Petition and affirmed the impugned order.

Cause Title: Vidya v. Vinita (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:29733)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur, Advocate Karun Negi

Respondent: Senior Advocate G.D. Verma, Advocate Summit Sharma

Click here to read/download Order