Holding That Will Is Validly Executed Is Not Same As Holding That It Is Genuine: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that holding that a ‘Will is validly executed’ and a ‘Will is genuine’ cannot be said to be the same.
The Apex Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as per which it reversed the judgment of a Single Judge in a Testamentary Suit.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asserted,“we cannot lose sight of the fact that holding that a ‘Will is validly executed’ and a ‘Will is genuine’ cannot be said to be the same. If a Will is found not validly executed, in other words invalid owing to the failure to follow the prescribed procedures, then there would be no need to look into the question whether it is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Therefore, it can be said that even after the propounder is able to establish that the Will was executed in accordance with the law, that will only lead to the presumption that it is validly executed but that by itself is no reason to canvass the position that it would amount to a finding with respect to the genuineness of the same”
AOR Sudarsh Menon represented the Appellants while AOR Manik Karanjawala represented the Respondent.
The respondent-plaintiff, Myra Philomena Coalho filed a petition for the grant of Letters of Administration (LoA) with the Will of the property and credits of her deceased mother. The Will said to be her last Will was propounded whereunder the testatrix bequeathed properties in favour of her two sons namely George and Reginald and the daughter who was the plaintiff, in equal shares. Caveat was filed by another son Victor. However, during the pendency of the proceedings he died and, therefore, the proceedings were continued by his widow. In view of the filing of the caveat, raising objections, the petition was converted into a suit.The subject matter of controversy was essentially about the Will in respect of which LoA was prayed for.
The Single Judge found that the Will in question was duly executed but it was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. The suit was dismissed and in appeal, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge.
At the outset, the Bench explained that the holding that a ‘Will is validly executed’ and a ‘Will is genuine’ cannot be said to be the same. If a Will is found not validly executed, in other words invalid owing to the failure to follow the prescribed procedures, then there would be no need to look into the question whether it is shrouded with suspicious circumstances.
“In other words, even after holding that a Will is genuine, it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to hold that it is not worthy to act upon as being shrouded with suspicious circumstances when the propounder failed to remove such suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court”, it said.
Some of the findings affirmed by the Lower Courts were that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the due execution and attestation of the Will of the deceased Maria Francisca Coelho and the deceased was of sound mind and had testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the Will. The defendants could not prove that the signatures of the deceased on the Will was forged, as alleged and the Will was executed by the deceased under undue influence, coercion, threats and fraud.
“On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, what is discernible is that there is conspicuous absence of any specific finding regarding the genuineness of the Will thereunder”, it said while also adding, “It is to be noted that the Division Bench had not held that there is such a specific finding by the learned Single Judge in the Testamentary Suit.Thus, it is evident that it was without making such an endeavour and exercise that the Division Bench held that in view of the finding with respect to the genuineness of the Will, the learned Single Judge could not have proceeded with the consideration whether the Will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances.”
The question was in the absence of a definite finding regarding the genuineness of the Will by the Single Judge in the Testamentary Suit whether the Division Bench was justified in holding that the Single Judge had made a specific finding regarding the genuineness of the Will without considering the question whether the cumulative effect of the findings returned by the Single Judge could be taken as a finding on the genuineness of the Will in question in the affirmative and thereby making a further probe as to whether the Will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances beyond further consideration.
“We are of the considered view that the said approach of the Division Bench cannot be said to be correct. A reasoned judgment of a Single Judge cannot be interfered with without a deep consideration”, it further held.
Thus, allowing the Appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment and restored the Appeal to its original number.
Cause Title: Lilian Coelho & Ors.v. Myra Philomena Coalho (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 7)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sudarsh Menon
Respondent: AOR Manik Karanjawala
