1996 JTR(SC) 2118
1997 AIR(SC) 1906 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1659 ; 1997 1 CLT(SC) 335 ; 1997 1 HinduLR 741 ; 1997 1 ICC 582 ; 1997 ILR(Kar) 2373 ; 1997 1 JT 404 ; 1997 1 PLR(SC) 783 ; 1997 2 RCR(Civ) 89 ; 1997 2 RLW(Raj) 207 ; 1997 1 Scale 216 ; 1997 3 SCC 546 ; 1996 SCR 828 ; 1997 KHC 1629 ; 1997 1 Supreme 514
1997(1) Supreme 514
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Major Singh -Appellant
versus
Rattan Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 718 of 1986
Decided on 10-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ujjagar Singh, Sr. Advocate, A.K. Sanghi, J.M. Khanna, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.100
SUCCESSION ACT : S.63
(A) The provisions of the Succession Act, read alongside the Civil Procedure Code, govern the admissibility and evidentiary value of a Will in a testamentary succession dispute. Section 63 of the Succession Act outlines the prerequisites for a valid Will and the burden on the propounder to eliminate suspicious circumstances, while Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code restricts appellate interference on questions of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved, requiring the court to assess whether the lower courts' factual findings were legally sustainable.
(B) Key principles include that the propounder of a Will must discharge the burden of proof by establishing valid execution and removing suspicious features to the satisfaction of the court; the rejection of a witness's testimony can be legally justified if the court finds the reasons given by the lower courts to be unsustainable; and an appellate court under Section 100 CPC can intervene on factual matters only if the trial court's decision reveals a substantial question of law.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Daulat Singh executed a Will bequeathing property to his brother Rattan Singh, who died shortly thereafter. The appellant, a predecessor-in-title of a female heir, challenged the trial and appellate decrees, leading to a succession dispute concerning the validity of the Will and the entitlement of the heirs.
Findings of Court:
The High Court determined that the trial court and the appellate court had correctly assessed the suspicious features of the Will, including its delayed production and the questionable credibility of the attesting witnesses, and found the reasons given by the lower courts to be legally insufficient, thereby justifying its interference to set aside the decrees.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 CPC despite the disputed being a question of fact, and whether the reasons provided by the lower courts for disbelieving the attesting witnesses were legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where the lower courts have rejected the evidence of the attesting witnesses on grounds that the propounder has not properly discharged his burden of proof, the High Court is duty-bound to examine the sustainability of those reasons; if the reasons are found to be flimsy, it constitutes a substantial question of law warranting appellate intervention under Section 100 CPC.
Result:
The appeal by special leave is allowed, and the decrees of the High Court are set aside.
(A) The provisions of the Succession Act, read alongside the Civil Procedure Code, govern the admissibility and evidentiary value of a Will in a testamentary succession dispute. Section 63 of the Succession Act outlines the prerequisites for a valid Will and the burden on the propounder to eliminate suspicious circumstances, while Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code restricts appellate interference on questions of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved, requiring the court to assess whether the lower courts' factual findings were legally sustainable.
(B) Key principles include that the propounder of a Will must discharge the burden of proof by establishing valid execution and removing suspicious features to the satisfaction of the court; the rejection of a witness's testimony can be legally justified if the court finds the reasons given by the lower courts to be unsustainable; and an appellate court under Section 100 CPC can intervene on factual matters only if the trial court's decision reveals a substantial question of law.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Daulat Singh executed a Will bequeathing property to his brother Rattan Singh, who died shortly thereafter. The appellant, a predecessor-in-title of a female heir, challenged the trial and appellate decrees, leading to a succession dispute concerning the validity of the Will and the entitlement of the heirs.
Findings of Court:
The High Court determined that the trial court and the appellate court had correctly assessed the suspicious features of the Will, including its delayed production and the questionable credibility of the attesting witnesses, and found the reasons given by the lower courts to be legally insufficient, thereby justifying its interference to set aside the decrees.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 CPC despite the disputed being a question of fact, and whether the reasons provided by the lower courts for disbelieving the attesting witnesses were legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where the lower courts have rejected the evidence of the attesting witnesses on grounds that the propounder has not properly discharged his burden of proof, the High Court is duty-bound to examine the sustainability of those reasons; if the reasons are found to be flimsy, it constitutes a substantial question of law warranting appellate intervention under Section 100 CPC.
Result:
The appeal by special leave is allowed, and the decrees of the High Court are set aside.
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, made on July 11, 1985 in SA No. 2830/80.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondents Rattan Singh & Daulat Singh were brothers. Daulat Singh had executed a Will on January 11, 1974 under Ex.PA bequeathing his property to Rattan Singh who died on January 19, 1974. It would appear that the appellant is a predecessor-in-title of his sister, Dayal Kaur. Rattan Singh & Daulat Singh had three sisters by name Rallo, Dayal Kaur and Inder Kaur. Dayal Kaur got mutated the properties to the extent of 1/3rd share to each of the sister in the mutation proceedings. Subsequently, the respondents filed a suit for declaration on the basis of the Will. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. As stated earlier, in the second appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the High Court could not interfere under Section 100, CPC since the suspicious features of the Will are questions of facts. The trial Court and the appellate Court had considered the suspicious feature and were not inclined to interfere. It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to establish that Will was validly executed removing all the suspicious features satisfying conscience of the Court. In that behalf, the High Court was not justified in interfering in the second appeal as there was no substantial question of law for decision under Section 100 CPC. It is seen that it is an admitted position that Rattan Singh, on coming to know that his brother was unwell, had gone from Calcutta to see him. After his coming, the Will came to be executed and the execution of the Will also was not disputed. The only question is : whether the Will came to be executed in the normal circumstances ? The courts below relied heavily on two suspicious features, namely, the Will was not produced at the earliest point of time, it was produced sometime before the trial. Secondly, the attestators were disbelieved on two grounds, namely, that Hari Singh, one of the attestators had not disclosed that the Will was not executed when the mutation was effected in his presence. The High Court has explained that the mutation was not properly proved and that there was no reason to disbelieve that fact. The High Court had perused the original as well as the photocopy of the Will produced in the trial Court in the first instance. The High Court has found that there is no interpolation in the original Will. Therefore, the rejection of the evidence of the attestator, Hari Singh s evidence was found to be not correct. As regards the other attestator-witness, by name Gurdev Singh, it was disbelieved on the ground that he filed a suit in a litigation against Jeet Singh. It was hardly a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the attestator s evidence. Under these circumstances, when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on the ground that the propounder had not properly discharged his duty, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below were sustainable in law. In view of the above reasoning of the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court, necessarily the High Court requires to go into that question to test the reasons. In this perspective, the High Court has rightly gone into that question and found that the reasons given by the courts below are flimsy. Thus there is substantial question of law that has arisen for consideration and the High Court has rightly considered the question. We are entirely agree with the High Court.
4. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******