Court: Supreme Court of India.
Case Type: Civil Appeal.
Case No.: 6076 of 2009.
Date of Judgement: 24/04/2020.
Appellant(s): Shivkumar and Ors.
Respondent: Sharanabasappa and Ors.
Bench:
- Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.
- Justice Hemant Gupta.
- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Statutes Referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’).
- Hindu Succession Act.
- Indian Succession Act.
- Indian Evidence Act.
Cases Referred:
- Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr.: (1982) 1 SCC 20.
- Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors.: (1977) 1 SCC 369.
- P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar and Ors: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 664.
- Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan: (2004) 2 SCC 321.
- Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs v. Vinod Kumar and Ors: (2012) 4 SCC 387.
- K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors.: (2009) 1 SCC 354.
- Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Ors.: AIR 1964 SC 529.
Facts:
- Sri Sangappa, son of Pampanna Shettar of Koppal was a businessman. Smt. Mahantamma was his wife. On 20/05/1994, the testator and his wife died in a car accident. Sangappa and his wife did not have any surviving children as their children had died when they were infants.
- The appellants- Shivkumar, Shashidhar and Kareebasewaraj were brothers and were the grand nephews of Smt. Mahanamatti.
- Respondent no.1 was Sri Sharanabasappa, son of Pampanna, the younger brother of the testator. Respondent no. 2 and respondent no.3 were Smt. Basavannemma and Smt. Siddama, respectively, who were the sisters of the testator. Respondent no.4 Sri Pampanna, son of Basappa and respondent no.5 Sri Siddanna, son of Fakirappa, were the nephews of the testator. These five respondents formed the trust ‘Shri Sangappa Pempanna Gangashettar Trust, Koppal’ on 28/05/1994.
- Respondents No. 6,7& 8 were Sri Gurushantappa, Sri Veerabasappa and Dr N.S. Gaikwad respectively. They were added to the suit as they were members of the trust created by the other respondents.
- The plaintiff-appellants had filed a civil suit to seek a declaration and injunction in a property dispute.
- The disputed property belonged to Sri Sangappa, son of Pampanna Shettar of Koppal.
- The appellants claimed that they had the ownership of the based on a will that the original owner had executed. Respondents no. 1-5, on the other hand, refuted this claim of the appellants.
- Respondent No.7, who was one of the trustees of the trust, however, admitted and endorsed the claims and contentions of the appellants. Respondent no.7 was a close associate of the testator and was not related to any of the appellants or the respondents. He filed a separate written statement supporting the claim of the appellants.
- In the judgement dated 12/09/2001, the Trial Court ruled in favour of the appellants.
- The respondents then challenged the judgement of the Trial Court in the High Court. On 26/10/2007, the High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the appellants moved to the Supreme Court.
- Suit properties: Schedule A: Consisting of the parcels of land in Sy. No. 631 and Sy. No. 632. These were in the name of the testator’s wife as per the relevant records.
- Schedules B, C & D: Consisting of shops and houses; admittedly, they belonged to the testator.
Issue:
- Is the Will executed by Sri Sangappa, which bequeathed the disputed properties to the appellants, genuine?
- As to whether the High Court was right in reversing the decision of the Trial Court and in holding that the contested Will was not a genuine document?
- As to whether the High Court ought to have considered remanding the case to the Trial Court?
The contention by the Appellants:
- The appellants were brought up by the testator and his wife and were living with the testator.
- The owner of the contested properties, Sri Sangappa, son of Pampanna Shettar of Koppal, had executed a will on 20/05/1991. Based on this Will, the appellants acquired the ownership rights to the contested properties.
- The ‘Shri Sangappa Pempanna Gangashettar Trust, Koppal’ created by the respondents was void, illegal and not binding on the appellants.
- There had been a split between the testator and his family around 1964, and he had thereafter lived separately from his family.
- The appellants were brought up by the testator in his house.
- The relationship between the testator and the respondents was not cordial until his death.
- The respondents were aware of the Will of the testator, but they still formed the trust.
The contention by the Respondents:
- The respondents no. 1to5 questioned the genuineness of the alleged Will and refuted the claims made by the appellants.
- The plaintiff-appellants’ plaint was not maintainable under section 92 of the CPC.
- The description of the suit properties was incorrect.
- The respondent nos.1to3 performed the last rites of the testator and his wife.
- The respondents denied the allegations related to the split.
- The trust was not impleaded as a party to the suit.
- The appellants forged the Will with ulterior motives.
- The deceased Sangappa did not prepare the Will.
- The respondents raised the following questions about the Will: that the Will did not bear the signature of deceased Sangappa; that there was a mismatch in Hindi Calendar date with that of English Calendar; that the past events were stated in the Will in such a way that they would happen in future; that various blanks were left in the description of the properties and even otherwise, the description was incorrect; that the amount bequeathed to Rajeshwari and Siddabasemma was not shown; and that the description of the properties under the Will was inconsistent, incorrect and incomplete.
- After the death of the testator and his wife, the respondents became the class II heirs of the deceased’s property according to the Hindu Succession Act. The trust was created to implement the philanthropic and noble thoughts of the deceased.
- Respondent No.7 started acting against the interests of the trust and was thus removed.
The contention by Respondent no.7 Veerabasappa:
- He was a colleague of the deceased and was very familiar with the deceased’s handwriting.
- The deceased’s advocate handed him a copy of the Will, and he was convinced of the genuineness of the Will after examining it. The draft of the Will was written in the handwriting of the deceased.
Obiter Dicta:
- Where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court, and the party which sets up the Will has to offer a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
- The High Court examined the matter correctly and was right in reversing the decision of the Trial Court.
- The contested Will carried five typed pages on three sheets of paper of different colours. The use of 3 different coloured papers for typing one Will document is not a normal action by a normal person under normal circumstances.
- The distance between the testator’s signature and the contents of the alleged Will on pages 1 and 3 was excessive, unusual and unnatural.
- The document carried three signatures of the testator, but they are not from the same pen. The signatures on page 1 and 5 are from an ink pen, while those on page 3 are from a ball pen. The testimony of witness PW-4 in this regard was not convincing.
- The document contains 5 pages of contents typed on 3 sheets of paper. Page no.2 was typed on the backside of page no.1, and page no.4 was typed on the backside of page no.3. However, page nos. 2 and 4 did not carry any signatures at all.
- The 4 discrepancies mentioned above raised serious questions about whether the document could be considered a Will.
- The document contained even more abnormalities- several blank spaces were found in the document in relation to the particulars of the properties, and even some properties were not properly described, the dates in the document with reference to Hindu Calendar and English Calendar did not match, certain past events were defined as though they will occur in the future.
- The contents of the Will revealed that the testator had a premonition that he would die in a car accident.
- The High Court was correct in reversing the decision of the Trial Court.
- A comprehension of the scheme of the provisions for remand as contained in Rules 23 and 23A of Order XLI is not complete without reference to the provision contained in Rule 24 of Order XLI that enables the Appellate Court to dispose of a case finally without a remand if the evidence on record is sufficient; notwithstanding that the Appellate Court proceeds on a ground entirely different from that on which the Trial Court had proceeded.
Judgement:
- The contested Will was not a genuine document.
- There was no reason for the High Court to remand the case of the trial court.
- The appeal was dismissed.
Rationale:
- The Will of a deceased person is a solemn document which is the final statement and proof of his/her intentions with their property. Therefore, such a document must be proven to be completely free of any questions, doubts and suspicions.
- In a normal and usual, a single document with multiple pages would be printed on the same type of sheets. There would be consistency in the placement of signatures. If the documents require to be attested, then either the person would attest every single page or would sign just once at the end. It is highly unlikely that one would sign only 3 out of the 5 pages. Such errors are even more unlikely in a document as important as a person’s Will.
- When suspicious circumstances exist, and the suspicions have not been removed, the document in question cannot be accepted as a Will.
- When sufficient evidence is available, the appropriate course for the Appellate Court would be to follow the Rule 24 of Order XLI CPC and dispose of the case finally.
- An unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice.
Conclusion:
- The document that the appellants claimed as the Will of the deceased was riddled with abnormalities. A document as solemn as a Will must be free from any irregularities. The Supreme Court even observed that the alleged document appeared to have been made after the death of the deceased with the use of blank signed papers that came in possession of the propounders.
Prepared by Mihir Poojary.