The Supreme Court observed that the meagre debarring of a sibling from the Will could not be a reason to suspect the genuineness of the Will, stating that there had to be other suspicious circumstances for executing the action.
The court stated that a testamentary court is not a “court of suspicion” but a “court of conscience” that has to consider germane resources as a replacement for adopting ethical reasoning. The Will was registered, and its execution was admitted.
The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sunderesh were looking into an appeal against a judgment of a High Court which had expressed its doubts on the genuineness of a Will on which the appellant was making bases of his claim by observing that there was no sense in not including the appellant’s siblings from the Will and that the evidence by the attesting witness was not ample to eradicate the disbelief around the Will.
The top court said that a testamentary court is not a court of mistrust but a sense of right and wrong. It has to think about the appropriate materials instead of adopting ethical reasoning.
A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion, except it is bordered by another state of affairs, creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is escorted by the sister of the recipient of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no scope for any disbelief when both of them have not raised any concern.
Background
A registered Will was implemented in favour of V Prabhakara[appellant] by Ms Jessie Jaylakshmi in 1948, who had adopted Prabhakara as her son. Mr Vijay Kumar, Prabhakara, attested the Will. Although Ms Jessie and her husband obtained a divorce decree on March 26, 1988, her husband was permitted to reside in the suit property.
Supreme Court Observation
Under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, considering that the conduct of a party would be construed, the bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sunderesh stated that Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines a “fact”. The conduct of a party will be construed as a fact under section 8.
Such conduct may either be a previous or subsequent one. It is the result of a cause or a preparation. When a proof is given on the conduct of a party and if it is proved to the court’s contentment, predominantly when it involves an admission, sufficient weightage is required to be given.
Such conduct would include a silence emanating from a party who is expected to verbalize and convey. When a party makes a claim based upon revocation of the earlier Will, as specified in the subsequent one, the said acknowledgement of the previous will form part of conduct leading to relevant fact vis-Ã -vis a fact in issue.
Noticing that when such admittance is comprehensible and unambiguous, there is no need to prove it while taking judicial notice. The court observed that under section 58, a fact admitted need not be proved unless the court warrants it.
Thus, in a case where a party acknowledges the execution of the manuscript like a Will, which is otherwise proved in accord with section 63 and section 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Indian Evidence Act, respectively, it becomes a significant fact fittingly proved in the nonattendance of any discretion by the court.
The exercise of discretion is a legal one, and as a consequence, there must be a basis in asking a party to authenticate it otherwise.
The bench made a note of the fact that the appellant complied with the mandate of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act along with section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and that appellant’s siblings being present at the time of implementation of the registered Will did not raise any doubt.Â
