The Supreme Court has observed that an unfair disposition property or unjust exclusion of heir, basically the dependents of the deceased is regarded as a suspicious circumstance.
Issue involved:
Whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in declining to grant probate in relation to the Will?
Trial court and High court Judgement:
- The Trial Court and High Court noted that the following were the unexplained suspicious circumstances about the will in question in a probate proceeding, initiated by woman who claimed that it was executed by her mother.
- That she was the major beneficiary, played an active role in execution of the will in question and attempted to conceal the acts before the court.
- There was no specific reason for not including one son and other daughter of testatrix (a woman who has made a will or given a legacy) while execution of the will and for excluding them from the major part of the estate in question
- There was no clarity about the construction supposed to be carried out by her. The manner of writing and execution of the will was highly doubtful.The witnesses were unreliable and there were contradictions in the statement of the witnesses.
APEX COURT OBSERVATION:
- The bench headed by Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that, the circumstances taken into account by the Trial and High Court, cannot operate against the validity of the propounded will.
- The court then examined each of these circumstances and particularly noted that the unequal distribution of assets by the Testatrix by giving major share to the daughter in presence of two other children (one of them was widowed daughter)
- Also the court noted that no reason was given as to why the testatrix would have thought to leave her widowed daughter. The evidence which was given regarding the relationship of son and testatrix is unsupported.
WHAT THE COURT HELD?
The court examined the other circumstances and concluded that the Will in question was surrounded by various suspicious circumstances which are material in nature and have gone unexplained. The appeal was therefore dismissed with the cost of Rs. 50,000.
