- In Swarnalatha vs. Kalavathy (2022), a bench consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the absence of one of the natural heirs from a bequest in a Will could not be depended upon to conclude that there are signs of foul play. The Hon'ble Court further contended that Article 14 does not apply to stipulations made under a Will.
- In the present case, the Madras HC overturned a District Court probate awarded to the appellant regarding two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and one by the mother. The same was done regarding the case's mysterious circumstances. One of them was the daughter's complete exclusion from the bequest and the neglect to indicate the dates on which the daughter was paid particular amounts in the Wills.
- Article 14 states that all citizens will be treated in the same manner by the law under the same circumstances. This article forbids any kind of discrimination.
- In a related case, Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. (2020), the Court held that the Will in issue was surrounded by many suspicious circumstances that were material in character and went unexplained. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the cost of Rs. 50,000.
- H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma (1958) is another notable case which has also been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Court .
- In another pertinent case, Vellasawmy Servai vs. Sivaraman Servai (57 Ind App 96), it was held that where a will is promulgated by the chief beneficiary, who has taken a leading role in giving directions for its preparation and securing its execution, probate should not be granted unless the evidence eliminates suspicion and proves that the testator authorized the Will.
- The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that since it was not the respondents' contention that the testators were not sound, the HC found fault with the appellants for failing to disclose the nature of their illnesses. It further contended that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest could not be used to establish that suspicious circumstances exist. Furthermore, the grounds presented in Exhibit P¬1 (Will) were persuasive enough to demonstrate that the exclusion of the daughter occurred naturally; since, if Exhibit P¬1 had been forged on blank papers with the mother's signatures, there would have been no reason for the father to cite the mother's implementation of the Will in his own Will.
- While referring to the aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that circumstances in which suspicion is generated are primarily those in which the testator's signature is contested, or the testator's mental competence is questioned. Furthermore, in determining the validity of Will's execution, the Court stated that it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children.
- Therefore, the Court did not impose Article 14 on dispositions made according to the Will and allowed the appeal.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
