Oral Judgment:
1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 1st February, 1994 delivered by the learned II Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Solapur dismissing the application for probate filed by the appellants. The appellants and the respondents were the original applicants and the respondents respectively in the proceedings before the trial court except the legal heirs who were brought on record in this proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this appeal are as under :
2. Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are sons of the appellant no. 1 and one Mr. Anand Narayan Talwar. The probate proceedings were filed in respect of the alleged will of the testator Mrs. Leelabai Badrinarayan Talwar who was owner of various properties (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). The said deceased died issueless on 24th November, 1984. The husband of the said deceased died on 13th July, 1989. Mr. Jawaharlal Rajaram Talwar was father of the said deceased. The said deceased got various properties inherited from her mother and maternal grand mother. It is the case of the appellant that the said deceased was the only heir of Mr. Jawaharlal. It is the case of the appellants that the husband of appellant no. 1 Mr. Anand Narayan started residing with the said deceased since 1970. In the year 1974, the said deceased performed the marriage of said Mr. Anand Narayan with appellant no. 1. It is the case of the appellants that after the said marriage the appellant no. 1 also started staying with the said deceased and was taking care of the said deceased. The appellant no. 1 continued to stay with the said deceased till her death.
3. On 2nd June, 1937 Kausalyabai Jawaharlal Talwar died. On 26th April, 1949 Gangubai Sewakram Pardeshi, grand mother of the said deceased died. It is the case of the appellants that the said deceased had adopted the husband of appellant no.1 by customary method prior to the marriage between the applicant no. 1 and the said Mr. Anand Narayan.
4. On 2nd March, 1976 the said deceased had executed a registered will. On 19th June, 1979, the said deceased executed another registered Will. On 9th August, 1980 the appellant no.2 was born to the appellant no. 1. On 29th January, 1983 the said deceased executed another registered will.
5. On 25th June, 1983, the appellant no. 3 was born to the appellant no. 1. It is the case of the appellants that the said will dated 29th January, 1983 was scribed by one Mr. Laxman A. Irabatti and was witnessed by Mr. Shantinath Vishwanath Korde and another. The said will was duly registered.
6. It is the case of the appellants that during her life time the said deceased made some changes in the said will dated 29th January, 1983 i.e. after one year from the registration of the will dated 29th January, 1983 when she was of sound and disposing mind. She had intended to make few changes and made those changes on the photocopy of the will with the help of appellant no. 1. The said changes were dictated to her by the said deceased. The said deceased had also written those changes separately in her own handwriting. Lastly the said draft was completed by the said deceased in her own handwriting. Those drafts were also brought to the notice of the scribe and the said deceased had intended to get the same registered. Due to old-age of the said deceased and due to some litigation pending between the said deceased and the appellant no. 1 Mr. Shivprasad Pardeshi, the said will could not be registered. Admittedly the alleged changes in the will were not initialed or signed by the said deceased. On 21st February, 1985 the appellants filed an application for probate with the will annexed i.e. Civil Misc. Application No. 82 of 1985 before the learned District Judge, Solapur. The said application was subsequently numbered as Misc. Appln. No. 228 of 1986 and was heard by the Civil Judge, Senior Division. The defendants filed written statement in the said application opposing the said application on various grounds.
7. The learned trial judge framed following points for determination :
"1. Whether the application of the Applicants is tenable in the present form?
2. Whether the Applicants have proved; that deceased Leelabai had executed last will in their favour on 19th January, 1983 by her own accord and this is genuine will?
3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to get probate from the Court on the basis of this Will deed dated 29th January, 1983?
4. What order?"
8. Before the trial court the appellants examined four witnesses including appellant no. 1 who was propounder of the said will. In her examination in chief she deposed that the said deceased was issueless. Husband of the said deceased died after demise of the said deceased. It was deposed that the husband of appellant no.1 was the cousin of the said deceased who was staying with the said deceased from 1970. The said deceased had performed the marriage of the appellant no.1 with the said Mr. Anand Narayan. After marriage of the appellant no. 1 she started staying with the said deceased. It is deposed by her that she had taken care of the said deceased and stayed with her till her death. The said deceased was looking after the property of Mr. Shankar as owner. The said witness identified the signature of the said deceased on the will dated 29th January, 1983. It is deposed that the said will was written by the bond writer Mr. Irabatti. Seven persons were appointed as trustees of the trust under the said will. She deposed that in the year 1983 the appellant no.1 had two sons. The said deceased used to say that third issue be included in that will if that issue was born after execution of the will. Under the said will, the said deceased had bequeathed the house property known as Leelabhavan to appellant no. 2 and 3.
9. It is deposed by the witness that the said deceased had made some changes in the original will. Mr. Kishore Ramchandra and Sunita Ramchandra Dhumale were removed as the trustees and the appellant no. 1 was admitted as trustee. In her cross examination the appellant no. 1 deposed that Sewakram, Eknath and Sitaram were real brothers. These three persons were sons of Mr. Jawaharlal. Gangubai was the wife of Sewakram. Kausalyabai was the daughter of Gangubai. The said deceased Leelabai was also the daughter of Kausalyabai. The witness admitted that Shankarlal and Amrutlal were sons of Eknath. Shivprasad was the son of Shankarlal and Hariprasad, Srikant, Shashikant and Jayanarayan were the sons of Shivprasad. Deepak and Jaiprakash were sons of Hariprasad. The witness deposed that she had no knowledge whether Shivprasad, Jainayaran, Shashikant, Deepak, Jaiprakash had any relations with the said deceased.
10. The appellant no.1 deposed that it was true that the will and amended will were not executed in her presence. When the will dated 29th Jan. 1983 was executed the appellant no. 2 was not born. The amended portion on the photocopy was not in the handwriting of the scribe Mr. Irabatti. The witness admitted that the said deceased had not signed at the portion which was inserted after scoring. The witness also admitted that the proposed amendment was not inserted in the original will. The witness admitted that in the original will it was mentioned that the new born brother of Kaustubh be added as sharer but in the amended copy, the name of Lalit Narayan was added by scoring the line to add the newly born son.
11. Name of the father of Anand Narayan was Purshottam who was son of Ratanlal. Ratanlal was the brother of Rajaram. Rajaram was the grand father of Leelabai. It is deposed by her that she had no personal knowledge of the property of the said deceased prior to her marriage and whereabouts of the said deceased. She had no knowledge of execution of the said will by the said deceased prior to the alleged will deed. Husband of the appellant no. 1 was adopted by the said deceased. She deposed that she had no knowledge what her advocate had pleaded. She had given information for the contents of this application for probate.
12. In her cross examination the appellant no.1 admitted that the said deceased had given a public notice in daily Samachar dated 21st June, 1979 contending that the appellant no. 1 and her husband were doing mischief and were misappropriating the property of the said deceased and therefore, she had cancelled the will dated 2nd March, 1976. Witness also admitted that the said deceased had stopped her and her husband not to do any acts in connection with her property. She admitted that the said deceased was having grudge against the husband of the appellant no. 1.
13. The witness deposed that the corrections in the photocopy of the will were done in August, 1984. The said deceased had carried out the corrections on the photocopy of the will. She wanted to executed corrected will deed. Corrected will deed was not executed by the said deceased. She deposed that it was her contention that the said deceased had modified the registered will deed and verified the same. The witness was not able to say the date of correction on the photocopy. Name of the appellant no. 1 was inserted in blue ink but she was not able to say any reason as to why the said portion was added by blue ink. Some portion was inserted by the said deceased in red ink.
14. The appellants examined Mr. Laxman Irabatti who was the scribe of the will dated 29th January, 1983. In his examination in chief he deposed that he was a bond writer and the said will dated 29th January, 1983 was under his handwriting which was written at the instance of the said deceased. The said will was read before the said deceased after writing the same and the said deceased had signed on the same in his presence. Witness identified her signature and also his own signature as scribe. Witness deposed that he had not carried out corrections in the original will. The document shown to him was under his handwriting upto the red line. The contents were written by him at the instance of the said deceased. The witness deposed that the corrected portion was in the handwriting of the said deceased.
15. In his cross examination the said scribe deposed that he did not remember whether the said witness and the said deceased only were present when she had called him. The said deceased had brought one hand written paper which was in her handwriting. The said deceased had brought only points. The witness had written the contents of that document as per contention of the said deceased. The witness subsequently deposed that he had not seen the document Exh 70. He had no knowledge who had written the portion below red line of Exh. 83.
16. The appellants examined Mr. Shantinath Vishwanath Korde as one of the witness who was one of the alleged witness to the will. In his examination in chief he deposed that he knew the deceased since 1971. He was giving instructions to the counsel on her behalf in the proceedings which was pending against the said deceased. On 29th January, 1983 the said deceased had executed a will. The said witness and her servants attended the office of the Sub Registrar, Solapur. They attended office of Mr. Irabatti, bond writer who had written the will as per the instructions of the said deceased. The said deceased had gone through that will after completion of the writing and that she had signed on the same in presence of the said witness and also in presence of witnesses. The mental and physical condition of the said deceased was sound at the time of execution of the will. The witness identified his signature and signature of the said deceased and also the other witnesses those who had signed on it.
17. It is deposed by the said witness that after one year of the earlier will, the said deceased called him and wanted to do some corrections in that will which was executed by her. She struck the portion which she did not want and added the portion which she wanted to add on the photocopy of the will. The writing of the corrections is that of the said deceased. The said deceased was giving instructions to Mr. Irabatti on which paper the corrections were to be made. Mr. Irabatti read that paper before the said deceased. The said deceased had written on the paper the proposed names of the trustees. The said deceased again called the witness and Mr. Irabatti after eight days. The appellant no. 1 was present at that time. The said deceased asked the appellant no.1 to write the proposed additions on the will. The appellant no. 1 was writing as per dictation of the said deceased. The said deceased had gone through that paper after completion of writing and she had put some writing on that paper. The witness however, could not say the exact contents of that writing. It was agreed to carry out amendment after return of Mr. Irabatti. The said deceased died in the month of November and could not carry out the amendment in the original document.
18. In his cross examination, the witness deposed that the said deceased was fat. One male servant permanently used to accompany her due to she being obese. He did not remember who had introduced him to the said deceased. The witness deposed that he could not say why the pen was changed at the time of corrections on Exh. 70 i.e. blue and red. He never asked the said deceased to initial at the places where she had scored and added contents as the document was going to the registered as per amendment. The witness admitted that the appellant no. 1 was present at the time of deleting and adding the portion on Exh. 70.
19. The witness deposed that he knew the appellant No. 1 since 1975-76. Witness deposed that the said deceased had told him once that the husband of appellant no. 1 used to give her trouble and used to give threats to kill her. It is deposed that nobody had accompanied the said deceased from her family when she had visited Mr. Irabatti in connection with the will. The said deceased had executed the will as her health condition was not proper. It was not mentioned in Exh. 82 that the contents of the will were read over to the said deceased or that her health condition was sound to execute the will. The document was registered at about 3.00 p.m.
20. The appellants examined one Mr. Madhukar Gangadhar Jadhav as one of the witness. In his examination in chief he deposed that he was tenant of the said deceased and she used to call him when she found any work. She used to issue rent receipts after accepting rent. He could identify the handwriting of the said deceased. The witness identified her handwriting on one of the writing. The witness deposed that he was paying the rent to the appellant no. 1 as daughter in law of the said deceased. He further deposed that the mental condition of the said deceased was sound during her life time. The witness identified the signature of the said deceased on the rent receipts. In his cross examination the witness deposed that he was tenant for last 20 years. He had carried out repairs to the shop on permission of appellant no. 1 after the death of the said deceased. There was no writing to pay rent to appellant no. 1 after the death of the said deceased. The witness deposed that the appellant no. 1 was residing with the said deceased in her life time and on that basis he said that the appellant no.1 was the daughter in law of the said deceased. There was no occasion for him to see the handwriting of the said deceased except the rent receipts which were received by him.
21. The respondents examined Mr. Jaiprakash Hariprasad Pardeshi, one of the the original opponents. In his examination in chief he deposed that the father in law of the appellant no. 1 was also his father in law. His relations with his father in laws were cordial. His father in law had some correspondence with the said deceased. The said witness was staying in a house which was owned by the said deceased. He used to pay the rent to the said deceased but she never issued any rent receipts. The witness deposed that he knew the fact that the relations between Mr. Anand Narayan and the said deceased were not cordial prior to the execution of the power of attorney executed by his father in law in his favour. He came to know that the said Mr. Anand Narayan was addict and for that reason the said deceased was not having good relations with him. The said deceased had driven the appellant no. 1 and the said Mr. Anand Narayan from the house and had also made complaint to the police station on 3 to 4 times. The witness produced the copy issued by the police. Witness deposed that the signature on the will was not genuine.
22. In his cross examination, he deposed that Mr. Anand Narayan who was his brother in law had four brothers. He had good relations with the brothers of the said Mr. Anand Narayan and also their father except the said Mr. Anand Narayan. Mr. Anand Narayan was not staying at his native place since last four years. The marriage of the said Mr. Anand Narfayan was performed by the said deceased. The witness had attended the said marriage. The witness denied the suggestion that the said Mr. Anand Narayan and the appellant no.1 were residing with the said deceased after their marriage at Leelabhavan. In para 4 of the cross examination he admitted that the was having cordial relations with Anand Narayan and also with Appellant no. 1.
23. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the appellants invited my attention to various portion of the oral evidence led by both the parties and also the documents and submits that the husband of the appellant no.1 was adopted by the said deceased. The said adoption was however cancelled subsequently as the same was not legal and not because the relations between the husband of the appellant no.1 and the said deceased were strained. The said deceased had got the husband of the appellant no.1 married to the appellant no.1. Prior to the said marriage the said Mr.Anand Narayan, husband of the appellant no.1 alone was staying with the said deceased. After the said marriage the appellant no.1 also started staying with the deceased and after appellant nos. 2 and 3 were born, they also were staying with the said deceased till her death. It is submitted that though relations between the said deceased and Mr.Anand Narayan may not be cordial, relations of the said deceased with the appellants and in any event with the appellant nos. 2 and 3 who are children of the said Mr.Anand Narayan and the appellant no.1 were very cordial.
24. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said deceased had apprehended resistance from the said Mr.Anand Narayan and had accordingly directed the trustees in the said Will to take possession of the properties if not handed over by the said Mr.Anand Narayan to the beneficiaries. The bequest in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 2 by the said deceased was natural. Appellant no.2 was two years old at the time of execution of Will. It is submitted that under the said Will, the said deceased had restrained the parents of the appellant no.2 from selling the bequeathed property so as to secure the interest of the legatees. The Will was absolutely natural.
25. Learned senior counsel submits that the respondents have not denied the execution of the original Will. The appellants had examined the appellant no.1 who was propounder of the said Will, the bond writer and one of the attesting witness and also one of the tenant. No suggestion was put to any of the witness about the alleged suspicious circumstances by the respondents. Even there was no suggestion disputing the signature and attestation of the original registered Will by the respondents.
26. In so far as the observation of the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment that the said Mr.Anand Narayan used to give threats to the said deceased to kill the said deceased is concerned, it is submitted that there was no such deposition in the cross examination of any of the witnesses examined by the parties. The learned senior counsel invited my attention to the original version of the evidence recorded by the trial court in Marathi in this context. It is submitted that the entire judgment is based on the wrong premise that the husband of the appellant no.1 used to threaten the said deceased to kill her and on that premise rejected the application for probate filed by the appellants.
27. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that Mr.Laxman Irabatti the bond writer who was examined by the appellants stood the test in cross examination. He had written the original Will in his own handwriting. There was no suggestion of any suspicious circumstances put to the said witness on execution, attestation or on the contents of the original Will or that no instructions were given by the said deceased to the said bond writer to draft the original Will or that the same was not dictated by the said deceased to the bond writer. It is submitted that the said deceased herself had made changes on the photocopy of the Will dated 29th January, 1983 but the same could not be executed. Learned senior counsel submits that thus the appellants had proved the execution and attestation of the original Will dated 29th January, 1983 and had also proved that the changes in the copy of the said Will were made by the said deceased herself.
28. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the evidence of Mr.Shantinath Korde who was one of the attesting witness who deposed that the testator was fat. The respondent did not lead any independent evidence to prove that the said deceased was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of Will. It is submitted that there was no suggestion put to any of the witnesses examined by the appellants that the said deceased was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of Will. It is submitted that the said deceased had not given any legacy to Mr.Anand Narayan. The appellants had produced the ration card to prove that the appellants were staying with the said deceased till the date of her death. The learned senior counsel submits that various corrections were made on the photocopy of the original Will in various inks by the said deceased herself which fact has been proved by the witnesses examined by the appellants.
29. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the original Will is admittedly registered. The learned trial judge did not discuss much on the execution of the Will and as to why the registered Will could not be accepted. At the time of execution of the Will, the said deceased was 63 years old and expired after two years of execution of Will. It is submitted that it was not the case of the respondents that the appellant no.1 or her husband had taken any prominent part or any part in execution of the original Will or amendments thereto. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Smt.Indu Bala Bose and others vs. Manindra Chandra Bose and another (1982) 1 SCC 20 and in particular paragraphs 3, 6 to 8, 16 and 17 and would submit that every circumstances cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstances and it can be suspicious only if it is not normal or is not normally accepted in a normal situation or is not accepted of a normal person.
30. Learned senior counsel submits that even if the trial court would have come to the conclusion rightly that the execution and attestation of the amendments to the Will dated 29th January, 1983 were not proved by the appellants, the learned trial judge could not have refused to grant probate in respect of the original Will, execution and attestation whereof was duly proved by the appellants and more so when the same was registered Will. It is submitted that the learned trial judge has committed a patent illegality by discarding even the original Will on the ground that the amendment was not proved.
31. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on sections 71 and 87 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and also on the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Sushila Ammal vs.Indiraniammal, 2000 (IV) CTC 78 and would submit that the trial judge if was not convinced that the amendments were proved, atmost could refuse to grant probate for such amendment and ought to have allowed the original Will which was proved.
32. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of Jerbanoo Rustomji Jamasji Garda vs.Pootlamai Manecksha Mehta (1955) ILR Bombay 821 and would submit that the probate court is the court of conscience and must apply its own mind and must satisfy its own conscience that the Will or the Codicil put forward as the last Will and Codicil of the deceased was her last Will and Codicil. The court must be satisfied as to the execution of the document, as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased and that satisfaction cannot be influenced or affected by any decision given by any civil court.
33. Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.1(A) (1) to 1(A)5, 1(B) to 1(B)4 and 1(CC), 1(B)(1) to 1(B)(4), 1(C)(1) to 1(C)(2) and 2 to 5 placed reliance on the definition of the executor under section 2(C) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and also placed reliance on sections 222 and 281 of the said Act. It is submitted that an application for probate has to be verified by one of the attesting witness. The appellant no.1 who had verified the application was not an attesting witness admittedly. The appellants were not even the executors. The application was not attested by attesting witness. It is submitted that though the respondents had raised this issue and in particular in paragraph 4 of the written statement, the trial court did not consider this crucial issue and ought to have rejected the application at the threshold since the same was defective and not maintainable not having been verified and attested in accordance with the provision of Indian Succession Act 1925.
34. Learned senior counsel submits that the appellants had prayed for probate of the alleged modified Will. The petition itself ought to have been dismissed on these grounds since the modified Will was not proved.
35. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in the Solapur District application for probate was not mandatory. The appellants could have filed a civil suit. It is submitted that the appellant no.1 was not the legatee under the original Will but she claimed rights under the alleged amended Will. It is submitted that neither petition for letters of administration could have been filed by the appellant no.1 nor petition for probate of the original Will she being not the executor or the legatee under the original Will.
36. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the legal notice issued by the testator herself on 19th June,1979 by which the testator had cancelled the adoption of the husband of the appellant no.1 and had alleged about the misbehaviour and threats given by him to her. It is submitted that the appellant no.1 had admitted in her evidence that such legal notice was issued by the testator herself before execution of alleged Will. In the said notice, the said testator had also referred to cancellation of her earlier Will dated 2nd March, 1976. The testator was not taken care of by the appellant no.1 or her husband. The testator had exposed their conduct in the said notice. The testator therefore in such circumstances could not have bequeathed any legacy in favour of any of the family members of Mr.Anand Narayan or appellant no.1 and such Will cannot be considered as a natural Will.
37. It is submitted that the appellant no.2 was only two years old at the time of execution of alleged original Will and at that stage there was no question of any love and affection of the said deceased with the said child.
38. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that under the alleged amendment of the Will, the appellant no1. gets power to control the property and also gets rights in the property. The witness examined by the appellants have deposed that the appellant no.1 had participated in the process of alleged amendment on the copy of the Will which itself would be a ground of suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that the misbehaviour and threat by the appellant no.1 and her husband to the said deceased would be the most relevant suspicious circumstances for consideration whether any legacy in their favour or in favour of their children could at all be bequeathed by the said deceased.
39. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the letters addressed by the testator which are marked as Exs. 141 and 142 and would submit that if the admitted signatures on those letters were compared with the signature on the original Will, it would be clear that the same differed. The respondents were also family members of the said deceased and could not have been deprived of any legacy and more particularly when she died issueless.
40. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the evidence of the appellant no.1 that she alongwith her husband were taking care of the testator is totally falsified in view of the notice issued by the testator herself pointing out their conduct. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to paragraph 6 of the alleged Will and submits that the said alleged request is ex-facie and highly improbable. The probate court has to apply arm chair rule. It is submitted that in the notice issued by the testator, she had clearly alleged that there were threats to kill given to her. The learned trial judge was thus right in rendering such finding of fact and has rightly rejected the application for probate.
41. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to a police complaint dated 20th March, 1983 which was made by the testator herself against Mr.Anand Narayan which was after the execution of the alleged Will. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the said Mr.Anand Narayan had abused and beaten the testator and had stolen and sold her utensils. Learned senior counsel submits that it was not the case of the appellant no.1 that there were any fights between the appellant no.1 and Mr.Anand Narayan or that they were staying separately and thus even if the relation of Mr.Anand Narayan was strained with the testator, none of the appellants would have been deprived of any legacy.
42. Learned senior counsel invited my attention of the evidence of witness no.3 Mr.Korde who was examined by the appellants who in his deposition stated that the testator had told him that Mr.Anand Narayan used to trouble her and threaten to kill.
43. Learned senior counsel submits that though in the alleged Will the property was bequeathed in favour of the child, an alleged right was created in favour of the parents to take care of such properties which itself shows that the said Will was bogus and unnatural.
44. Learned senior counsel submits that alleged amendment to the original Will as admittedly not signed and thus in any event could not have been probated. It is submitted that it was not the case of the appellants in the application for probate that if probate of the amended Will could not be granted, probate of the original will shall be granted. The learned trial judge has therefore rightly rejected the entire application. The entire evidence led by the appellants was on that premise that the appellants had applied for probate of the amended Will and not the original Will. Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Inder Chand Nayyar vs.Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and another AIR 1977 Delhi 34 and would submit that since the appellant no.1 was not appointed as executor in the Will either expressly or by necessary implication, she could not have filed the probate petition.
45. Learned senior counsel submits that it was not the case of the appellants that the appellants were the residuary legatees who could file a petition for letters of administration. It is submitted that probate petition could be filed only by the executor of the Will under section 222 of the Indian Succession Act. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1958 MP 372, AIR 1934 Allahabad 1053 and AIR 1977 Delhi 34.
46. Mr.Shah learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 supported the case of the other respondents and adopted the submissions of Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel. Learned counsel further submits that Mr.Korde, who was termed as attesting witness by the appellants in his evidence did not depose that he had signed on the alleged Will in the presence of the testator which is one of the mandatory condition under section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The attestation of the Will was thus not proved. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of Raju Muthaya Shetty vs.Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. 2014 (2) Bom. C.R.383 and in particular paragraphs 4 and 5 and would submit that each of the witnesses have to sign in presence of the testator.
47. Learned counsel invited my attention to the deposition of Mr.Korde who deposed that Mr.Mhaske and Mr.More acted as attesting witnesses. He did not name Mr.Korde as an attesting witness. Mr.Mhaske and Mr.More were not examined as a witness.
48. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the fact that the said deceased had executed four Wills itself indicates that her mind was not sound and stable. In view of the deposition of the alleged attesting witness that the health condition of the testator was not good, examination of a doctor as a witness was necessary in these situation and that also creates suspicion about the execution of the Will. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of H.Venkatachala Iyangar vs.B.N.Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 and in particular paragraphs 18 and 20 and submits that since there were suspicious circumstances in execution of the Will, the appellant no1 who was propounder of such Will was under an obligation to dispel all the suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Apoline D'Souza vs.John D'Souza (2007) 7 SCC 225 at page 232 in support of the aforesaid submission.
49. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Niranjan U.Joshi vs. Mrudula J.Rao, AIR 2007 SC 614 and in particular paragraphs 31 to 33 in support of the submission that the Will was not attested and no probate could be granted in respect of such alleged Will.
50. It is submitted that under the alleged Will, the trust which is alleged to have been created has been only given income on the temples except two rooms whereas rest of the properties are given to the propounder or appellant no.2 who is her son which shows that the Will was not a natural Will. Learned counsel distinguished the judgments relied upon by Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel.
51. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the trial court has rendered a finding that the propounder was not sure which Will the propounder wanted probate. There was confusion in the mind of the propounder.
52. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel in rejoinder submits that only defendant nos. 1, 6 and 7 had filed written statement before the trial court. The oral evidence was led only by defendant no.7. It is submitted that the testator had bequeathed moveable as well as immoveble property where temple was located in favour of the trust and not only income or two rooms as alleged. The testator had given directions for creation of the trust, for appointment of trustees and for registration of trust. The testator had also mentioned the purpose for which the income of the trust was to be utilised. The property had been bequeathed to the appellant no.2 who was then two years old with a restriction not to sale, mortgage, gift or donate. The principle condition of the Will was that the family could continue to stay in the property. It is submitted that it is provided in the Will that in case of any breach of the conditions mentioned in the Will by any of the beneficiary or his parents, the bequeathed property shall be amalgamated with the trust property. It is submitted that there was no case in the written statement that the appellants family were not residing with the testator or that the respondents were staying with the testator and looking after her. No legacy was given to the husband of the appellant no.1.
53. Learned senior counsel submits that the testator had also referred to the notice issued by the testator in the Will and had accordingly not given any bequest in favour of the husband of the appellant no.1. It is submitted that in any event the will was executed in the year 1983 whereas the public notice was issued in the year 1979. In the meanwhile child was born to the appellant no.1 and Mr.Anand Narayan in the year 1981. There was thus change of mind of the testator who was an issueless lady.
54. Learned senior counsel submits that there was no request in the original Will giving any controlling right in the property to the appellant no.1. Learned senior counsel submits that all the parties were present in the office of the registrar. There was no suggestion put to the witness that he did not sign in presence of the testator.
55. Learned senior counsel submits that in the written statement of defendant no.1, no case of suspicious circumstances is made out. There was no plea that the relations between the husband and wife were not cordial. There was no positive case that the relations of the appellants were not good with the testator.
56. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to paragraph 2 of the application for probate and submits that the applicants had applied for probate of the original Will as well as amended Will. It is submitted that even in the written statement, the respondent no.1 had disputed the registered Will and also has dealt with an amended Will. It is submitted that it is within the powers of the testamentary court to grant probate of the original Will if the same is proved.
57. In so far as issue of maintainability of application for probate is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that though such issue was raised by the defendant no.1 in the written statement, no submissions were made before the trial court. The trial court did not frame any such issue for determination. It is submitted that the petition is held maintainable by the trial court.
58. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Nagpur High Court in case of Ramasinha Rajput vs. Murtibi 1923 Nagpur 41 and submits that such provisions are directly and not mandatory. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High court in case of Haripada Saha and another vs.Gobinda Chandra Saha and others 51 Calcutta Weekly Notes 917 in support of the submission that petition for probate was maintainable and the technical defect in filing such petition has to be ignored. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Govind M. Asrani vs. Jairam Asrani and another, AIR 1963 Madras 456 and in particular paragraphs 9, 10, 13 to 15 and submits that application for probate can be converted on the death of one of the executor into one for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed and in any event the same being a technicality not affecting the substance of the matter has to be ignored.
59. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal and others vs. Bhola Ram Agarwal (2000) 9 SCC 714 (paragraphs 2 and 5), judgment of this court in case of Smt.Vatsala Srinivasan vs. Narisimha Raghunathan 2011(2) Mah.L.J.953 (paragraphs 7 and 18) and judgment of this court in Chamber Summons No.168 of 2012 in Suit No.68 of 2010 delivered on 23rd September, 2013 in case of Shirin Baman Faramarzi vs.Zubin Boman Faramarzi (paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 22 and 23).
60. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court in case of Dilip Kumar Mohapatra vs.Subhadra and ors. AIR 1974 Orissa 130 (paragraphs 10) and submits that if probate could not be granted, the trial court could have granted letters of administration with Will annexed. Powers of the testamentary court are much wider than powers of a civil court.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION :
61. One of the issue raised by the respondents is that the application for probate filed by the appellants was not verified by any of the attesting witness and that none of the appellants were the executors of the alleged Will and thus the application for probate was defective and not maintainable being in violation of the sections 222 and 281 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is urged by Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel for some of the respondents that though this issue was raised by his clients in the written statement, the trial court did not consider this issue and ought to have rejected the application itself as not maintainable being defective and not in accordance with provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that since the appellant no.1 was not appointed as executor of the Will either expressly or by necessary implication, she could not have filed the probate petition. It was not the case of the appellants that the appellants were the residuary legatees who could file a petition for letters of administration.
62. A perusal of the record indicates that though the defendants had raised issue about maintainability of the application for probate on the ground that the same was not verified by one of the attesting witness, no such issue was framed by the trial court for determination. The trial court has held that the application for probate filed by the appellants was maintainable. The defendants did not apply before the trial court for re-framing of the issues and/or for framing of additional issue. The defendants have not even advanced any argument on this issue before the trial court.
63. Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal and others vs. Bhola Ram Agarwal (2000) 9 SCC 714 has held that where an executor dies, his heirs cannot be substituted because the executor possessed personal rights, but this is not applicable where the heirs of a legatee apply for issue of letters of administration. It is held that the appellants in that case could file a petition for issue of letters of administration even at that stage and since considerable time has elapsed, interest of justice demands that the proceedings should come to an end as early as possible and an appeal shall not be dismissed merely on a highly technical ground. Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court read thus :-
â2. One Maina Devi, wife of late Baiyanath Agrawal executed a will on 14-6-1976 nominating her nephew Matadin Agarwal to be the owner of her house, landed properties and other immoveable properties. On 23-9- 1981, Maina Devi died. In the year 1982, Matadin Agarwal filed a probate petition (Probate Case No.1 of 1982) which was converted into Title Suit No.1 of 1985. In the probate petition, Matadin Agarwal claimed grant of probate in his favour. On 13-7-1987, Matadin Agarwal died. On the death of Matadin Agarwal, his heirs who are appellants before us, filed an application in Title Suit No.1 of 1985 for their substitution in place of Matadin Agarwal. They also filed another application for amendment of the petition. In the amendment application, it was prayed that instead of grant of probate the legal heirs may be granted letters of administration. These applications filed by the appellants herein were rejected by the court. The revision filed by them was also dismissed by the High Court. It is against these orders, the appellants are before us.
5. We find that it is not disputed that Matadin Agarwal was a legatee under the will. It is true that Matadin Agarwal ought to have applied for issue of letters of administration and not for probate. However, this did not debar his heirs to get the probate petition amended. The trial court rejected both the applications of the appellants on the ground that since the probate petition filed by the legatee related to his personal right, therefore no right accrued to the appellants for their substitution in his place. This view, according to us, is not correct. Matadin Agarwal, as stated above, was a legatee and not an executor under the will.
It is true that where an executor dies, his heirs cannot be substituted because the executor possessed personal right, but this is not applicable where the heirs of a legatee apply for issue of letters of administration. It is not disputed that today the appellants can file a petition for issue of letter of administration. Since considerable time has elapsed, we feel that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings should come to an end as early as possible and we should not dismiss this appeal merely on highly technical ground.â
64. Division Bench of this court in case of Smt.Vatsala Shrinivasan vs. Narisimha Raghunathan 2011 (2) Mah.LJ 953 has held that both the proceedings i.e. proceeding for the grant of probate as well as the proceeding for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed is initiated for protecting the interest of the legatees under the Will. The essence of the enquiry in both the proceedings is the same and relates to the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It is held that having regard to these fundamental similarities in both the proceedings, there was no conceivable reason as to why the law must be regarded as prohibiting a beneficiary from seeking to continue the proceeding upon the death of the sole executor and as incidental thereto for seeking formal conversion of the proceeding from one for the grant of a probate to one for the issuance of letters of administration. It is held that in the absence of a legal prohibition to the contrary, the court would not readily accept a submission, the effect of which would be to result in delaying the proceeding for the administration of the estate and a resultant multiplicity of proceedings. Paragraphs 7 and 18 of the said judgment read thus :-
â7. The question however that arises before the Court is whether upon the death of the sole executor during the pendency of the proceedings initiated for the grant of probate, the beneficiary under the will is entitled in law to continue the proceeding by seeking the issuance of letters of administration and whether in aid of that relief the beneficiary can seek substitution in the proceedings.
18. Both a proceeding for the grant of probate as well as a proceeding for the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed is initiated for protecting the interest of the legatees under the will. The essence of the enquiry in both the proceedings is the same and relates to the genuineness and authenticity of the will. Having regard to these fundamental similarities in both the proceedings there is no conceivable reason as to why the law must be regarded as prohibiting a beneficiary from seeking to continue the proceedings upon the death of the sole executor and as incidental thereto for seeking formal conversion of the proceeding from one for the grant of a probate to one for the issuance of letters of administration. If there were to be a specific prohibition in law enacted by the legislature the position may have well been different. In the absence of a legal prohibition to the contrary the Court would not readily accept a submission, the effect of which would be to result in delaying the proceedings for the administration of the estate and a resultant multiplicity of proceedings. This is amplified in the present case where the recording of evidence is complete. Nearly eight years have elapsed since the institution of the suit. Evidence of seven witnesses has been recorded and the suit is ripe for final hearing. There is no dispute about the position that in any event the beneficiary would have been entitled to institute separate proceedings independently for the grant of letters of administration. That right can well be espoused by the beneficiary by seeking a continuation of the existing proceedings. It must be noted, that this right which is available is recognized with reference to a beneficiary under the will. A fundamental difference has to be made between a situation where the legal heirs of a sole executor seek impleadment in the proceedings on the death of the executor. The legal heirs of the sole executor cannot be brought on record since the right to seek probate of the will subsists in the executor alone. But that is not to say that a beneficiary under the will is prohibited from continuing the existing proceedings. The proceedings enure to the benefit of the legatee. The appointment of the administrator is but a step in aid of the proper administration of the estate of the deceased. Section 273 provides that probate or letters of administration shall have effect over all the properties and estate of the deceased through the State in which the same is or are granted and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased and all persons holding property which belongs to him. Parties, documents and facts are similar in both sets of proceedings. In this view of the matter and particularly having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court to which we have made a reference earlier we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was not in error in allowing the Chamber Summons.â
65. Learned single judge of this court in case of Shirin Baman Faramarzi vs. Zubin Boman Faramarzi in Chamber Summons No. 168 of 2012 delivered on 23rd September, 2013 after adverting the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal and others (supra) and judgment of Division Bench of this court in case of Smt.Vatsala Shrinivasan (supra) allowed the beneficiary to seek conversion of petition for probate into petition for letters of administration with Will annexed and to proceed with the said proceedings.
66. In my view though the appellants were admittedly not the executors of the Will, the fact remains that the appellant no.2 was one of the legatee under the said alleged Will. The defendants though raised this issue in the written statement before the learned trial judge, appears to have not pursued the said objection when the issues were framed by the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge has on the other issues raised held that the said application for probate was maintainable. If the defendants would have pursued such objections raised in the written statement at the proper stage, appellants would have considered their position and would have taken appropriate steps. Division bench of this court has already held that in the proceedings for grant of probate as well the proceedings for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed, the essence of enquiry is the same and relates to the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. I am respectfully bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this court referred to aforesaid which in my view are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. I am not inclined to accept this hyper technical argument of the learned senior counsel for some of the respondents at the stage of final hearing of this appeal. In so far as judgments of various High Courts relied upon by Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel on this issue which are referred to aforesaid in my view are clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case and even otherwise contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court.
67. The next question that arises for consideration of this court is that whether the appellants had prayed for grant of probate only in respect of the alleged amended Will or in the alternate also for the alleged original Will dated 29th January 1983 and if the appellants had failed to prove the execution of the amendment to the original Will, whether the trial court could have refused to grant probate in respect of the original Will. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on this issue is that the appellants did not apply for probate of the alleged Will dated 29th January, 1983 at all but had prayed for probate only in respect of the alleged amended Will. This submission was without prejudice to the rights and contention that neither the original Will nor the amended Will were executed by the said deceased.
Mr.Apte learned senior counsel in support of this submission invited my attention to the findings rendered by the learned trial judge on this issue and would submit that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the entire application having come to the conclusion that the application was for grant of probate in respect of the amended Will.
68. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the appellants on the other hand invited my attention to the application for probate and in particular paragraph 2 of the said application filed by the appellants before the trial court and would submit that the said application was for grant of probate of the original Will as well as amended Will.
69. A perusal of the pleadings filed by the parties before the learned trial judge indicates that the appellants had referred to both the Wills in the application for probate and had applied for probate of the original Will as well as amended Will. A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent no.1 also clearly indicates that the respondent no.1 had disputed the registered Will and also the amended Will in the written statement. The learned trial judge in the impugned judgment had made an observation that there was confusion in the mind of the appellants whether they were seeking probate of the original Will or the amended Will and after making such observation rejected the entire application. In my view even if the learned trial judge would have come to the conclusion that the appellants had only proved the execution of the original Will dated 29th January 1983 and had not proved the execution of the amendment to the original Will, the testamentary court which has power to grant probate or letters of administration has power to grant part relief and could not have rejected the entire application on the ground of the propounder of the amended Will not having proved the amendment. I am therefore not inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Apte learned senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents on this issue.
70. A question that still arises for consideration of this court is whether appellants had proved the execution and attestation of the amendment to the original Will dated 29th January 1983. A perusal of the record indicates that in her evidence, the appellant no.1, has admitted that the deceased testator had not signed at the portion which was inserted after scrolling it. She also admitted that the proposed amendment was not inserted in the original Will. It was admitted that in the original Will it was mentioned that the new born brother of Kaustubh be added as sharer but in the amended copy, the name of Lalit Narayan was added by scrolling the line to add the newly born son. In her cross examination, the appellant no.1 admitted that the alleged corrections were carried out by the deceased on the photocopy of the Will but the corrected Will was not executed by her. The said witness was not able to say the date of correction on the photocopy and was also not able to say as to why the name of appellant no.1 was inserted in blue ink when some of the portion was inserted by the said deceased on the copy of the will in red ink.
71. The scribe of the original Will Mr.Laxman Irabatti who was examined as one of the witness by the appellants also in his evidence deposed that he had not carried out any corrections in the original Will. The witness could not remember whether the said witness and the deceased only were present when she had called him. The witness subsequently deposed that he had not seen the document marked as Ex.70 and had no knowledge who had written the portion below red line of Ex.83.
72. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel invited my attention to section 71 of the Indian Succession Act and fairly admitted that the said deceased had not affixed her signature on the amendment to the original Will and that the said amendment was not carried out on the original Will. In my view in view of section 71 of the Indian Succession Act, since the execution of the deceased in the amendment to the alleged original Will was not proved by the appellants, the learned trial judge even otherwise could not have granted probate in respect of the amendment to the original Will. Both the witnesses examined by the appellants i.e. the appellant no.1 and Mr.Laxman Irabatti in their respective depositions have admitted that the amendment was not carried out in the original Will and the same was not even executed by the deceased testator. I am thus inclined to accept the submissions of Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel for some of the respondents that the execution of the amendment to the original Will was not proved by the appellants and no probate in respect of such alleged amendment could have been considered by the learned trial judge.
73. The next question that arises for consideration of this court is whether the appellants had proved the execution and attestation of the Will dated 29th January 1983. The issue also that arise for consideration of this court is whether the said Will dated 29th January 1983 was surrounded by any suspicious circumstances and if so, whether the appellants have dispelled such suspicious circumstances before the trial court.
74. The appellant no. 1 in her evidence deposed that the Will and the amended will were not executed in her presence. The amended portion on the photo copy was not in the handwriting of the scribe Mr. Irabatti. The witness admitted that in the original will it was mentioned that the new born brother of Kaustubh be added as sharer but in the amended copy the name of Lalit Narayan was added by scoring the line to add the newly born son. Mr. Laxman Irabatti who was examined by the appellants as one of the witness and who was the alleged scribe of the Will dated 29th January, 1983 deposed that the said Will dated 29th January, 1983 was under his handwriting which was read before the said deceased and the said deceased had signed on the same in his presence. He deposed that the document shown to him was under his handwriting upto the red line and the corrected portion was in the handwriting of the said deceased. In his cross examination, however, the said witness deposed that he did not remember whether the said witness and the said deceased only were present when she had called him. The same witness subsequently deposed that he had not seen the document Exh.70 and he had no knowledge who had written the portion below red line of Exh. 83.
75. The appellants also examined Mr. Shantilal Vishwanath Korde who was one of the alleged attesting witness who deposed that the said deceased had executed the will dated 29th January, 1983 and the said witness and the servants of the deceased attended the office of Sub Registrar, Solapur. The said witness also deposed that after one year of the execution of the earlier will, the said deceased had called him and wanted to do some corrections in that will. She struck the portion which she did not want and added the portion which she wanted to add on the photo copy of the will. The writing of the corrections was that of the said deceased. It is also deposed that the said deceased was giving instructions to said Mr. Irabatti on which paper the corrections were to be made. Mr. Irabatti read that paper before the said deceased. It is deposed that the said deceased had asked appellant no.1 to write proposed additions on the will. The appellant no. 1 was writing as per dictation of the said deceased. The witness however, could not say the exact contents of that writing. The witness could not say why the pen with different ink was changed at the time of corrections on Exh.70 i.e. blue and red. He never asked the said deceased to put initial at the places where she had scored and added contents as the document was going to be registered as per amendment. The said witness admitted that appellant no.1 was present at the time of deleting and adding the portion on Exh. 70.
76. A perusal of evidence of the appellant no. 1, the scribe Mr. Laxman Irabatti and the attesting witness Mr. Shatinath Korde clearly shows inconsistency in their evidence. However, one fact which is clear from the evidence of attesting witness that the appellant no. 1 was present at the time of deleting and adding the portion on Exh. 70 and had also participated in drafting of the amendment. The appellant no.1 was present at that time. The deceased had alleged to have asked appellant no.1 to write proposed additions on the Will and who was writing as per dictation of the said deceased. In my view there is thus inconsistency in the deposition of the appellant no.1 that she was not present when the amendment to the original will was dictated and in the evidence of the attesting witness who was examined by the appellants who has deposed that the appellant no.1 was not only present but had taken dictation of the said deceased for inserting the amendment. It is thus clear that the appellant no. 1 had played prominent role and had participated in the amendment alleged to have been carried out by the said deceased on the photocopy of the Will. It is also not in dispute that under the said alleged amendment certain rights had been proposed to be given to the appellant no.1 regarding the properties.
77. A perusal of the evidence of the appellant no. 1 indicates that the appellant no. 1 knew that the said deceased had given a public notice in daily Samachar dated 21st June, 1979 contending that the appellant no. 1 and her husband were doing mischief and were misappropriating the property of the said deceased and therefore, she had cancelled the will dated 2nd March, 1976. The appellant no.1 has also admitted that the said deceased had stopped her and her husband from doing any acts in connection with her properties. She also admitted that the said deceased was having grudge against the husband of appellant no. 1.
78. In the cross examination of the attesting witness, he admitted that the said deceased was obese and one male servant permanently used to accompany her due to her said sickness. He did not remember who had introduced him to the said deceased. The said witness also admitted that the said deceased executed the will, as her health condition was not proper. It was not mentioned in the will that the contents of the will were read over to the said deceased or that her health condition was sound to execute the will. The said witness also deposed that the said deceased told him once that the husband of appellant no. 1 used to give her trouble and used to give her threats to kill her.
79. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the testator herself had issued a legal notice on 19th June, 1979 by which she had cancelled the adoption of the husband of appellant no.1 and had alleged about his misbehaviour and threats given by him to her. The said deceased had cancelled her earlier will i.e. 2nd March, 1976. The said deceased had also lodged a police complaint on 20th March, 1983 i.e. after execution of the will against the husband of the appellant no. 1 alleging that the said Mr. Anand Narayan had abused and had beaten the said deceased testator and had stolen her utensils. It is not the case of the appellants that the appellant no.1 and Mr. Anand Narayan were staying separately or that their relations were strained. A perusal of the draft amendment indicates that though in the alleged will the property was bequeathed in favour of the child an alleged right was sought to be created in favour of the parents of the said child, i.e. appellant no.1 and Mr. Anand Narayan to take care of such properties.
80. A perusal of the record including the evidence of appellant no. 1 makes it clear that the relations of the said deceased with the husband of appellant no. 1 and also with the appellant no. 1 were not good. Police complaints were filed against the husband of the appellant no.1 by the said deceased. The deceased had also issued a public notice alleging threat to her life and also harassment on the part of the appellant no.1 and her husband. It is also clear that even after alleged execution of the original will, the said deceased had made a complaint against the husband of appellant no. 1. I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the appellant that though the said deceased may have strained relations with the husband of appellant no. 1 or with the appellant no.1 , she would have love and affection for the child (appellant no. 2) at the time of execution of the will. I am also not inclined to accept the submission of learned senior counsel that the said deceased in the alleged will had not given any legacy in favour of the parents directly or indirectly. A perusal of the entire evidence on record including the documentary evidence clearly shows that the said deceased was hurt by the conduct of appellant no.1 and her husband in view of the husband of appellant no.1 giving threats to her and in view of the harassment meted out to her by both of them. The appellants have failed to prove that inspite of such strained relations between the said deceased and the appellant and her husband, the said deceased still would have love and affection for their child and would have given him substantial part of her estate. Merely because the alleged will was registered, that in my view is not conclusive and will not be sufficient to dispel the suspicion regarding it when the suspicion exists before submitting the document to registration.
81. It is submitted by Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel that the defendants in their written statement had not alleged any suspicious circumstances in the written statement or have not demonstrated the existence of any such suspicious circumstances in execution of the will by the said deceased. Supreme Court in case of Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and in case of Sridevi and Ors. Vs. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784 has held that if disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances and if the propounder himself takes prominent part in the execution of the will, confers on his substantial benefit, these may be described as suspicious circumstances. The onus would be on the propounder of the will to remove the suspicious by leading cogent evidence if there exists any suspicious circumstances.
82. Overall evidence of the attesting witness examined by the appellants also indicates that it was not deposed by the said attesting witness that he had signed on the alleged will in the presence of the testator which is one of the mandatory condition under section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This court has held in case of Raju Muthayya Shetty Vs. Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. (supra) that each of the witnesses have to sign in presence of the testator. In this case the said attesting witness however, deposed that Mr. Mhaske and Mr. More acted as attesting witnesses. Mr. Mhaske and Mr. More were not examined as witnesses. In my view Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, is right in his submission that even attestation of the will has not been proved in accordance with section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The evidence led by the witnesses examined by the appellants also indicates that the said deceased was not keeping good health at the time of execution of the will.
83. A perusal of the will also indicates that except a small portion which is bequeathed to the trust directed to be created under the alleged will, rest of the property is alleged to have been bequeathed in favour of the child of appellant no. 1 and Mr. Anand Narayan. In my view this is also one of the suspicious circumstances to indicate that the said will was not a natural will. The appellants could not prove that the relations between the said deceased and the respondents were strained and would have been deprived of any legacy in the alleged will by the said deceased.
84. A perusal of the record also indicates that the said deceased had cancelled the adoption of the husband of appellant no. 1 by issuing a legal notice and had also cancelled her earlier will dated 2nd March, 1976. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Kumbhakoni learned senior counsel that the will was a natural will and was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. I am also not inclined to accept that the appellants were taking care of the said deceased. The Testamentary Court has to apply arm chair rule. The Division Bench of this court in case of Zarina Irani Vs. Shapur Jawanmardi 2005 (1) Mh.LJ 293 after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369 has held that where the execution of the will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between plaintiff and defendant. The proof of execution of the will must satisfy the conscience of the court.
85. A perusal of the record produced by both the parties clearly indicates that appellant no. 1 and her husband used to give threats and their relations with the deceased were strained. In such circumstances the said deceased would not have bequeathed anything in favour of their child with powers to the parents to take care of the properties. The evidence of the propounder does not show that they have dispelled the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will which existed as is apparent from the evidence on record. Since the onus was on the appellants who were propounder of the will to dispel such suspicious circumstances which they have failed to discharge, the learned trial Judge in my view was right in rejecting such will and in refusing to grant probate on the application of the appellants.
86. In so far as issue no. 1 framed by the learned trial judge, on the maintainability of the application for probate is concerned, the learned trial judge has answered the said issue in affirmative holding that the said application was tenable in the present form. In my view there is no infirmity in the said finding rendered by the learned trial judge.
87. In so far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the learned trial Judge has considered the entire evidence on record including the oral evidence and have rendered various findings and has come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased Leelabai had executed last will in her favour on 19th January, 1983 by her own accord and that the same was genuine will. In my view the said finding and the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge also rendered after consideration of entire material and does not require any interference.
88. In so far as issue no.3 is concerned, in my view the learned trial Judge has erroneously held that there was confusion in the mind of appellants that whether they were seeking probate of the will dated 29th January, 1983 or of the amendment. In my view the said observation of the learned trial Judge is not correct and contrary to the pleadings on record. Be that as it may, findings rendered by the learned trial Judge on the validity of the Will dated 29th January, 1983 and also the amendment and the conclusion that the amendment was not proved and the will dated 29th January, 1983 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances are in my view correct. I am therefore, of the view that no interference is warranted with the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge rejecting the application for probate filed by the appellants. In my view the appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
89. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.