Where a will, alleged to have been executed by the propounder's sister, was
duly attested by witnesses, and no objection affidavit was filed by one of the
contesting brothers-who also admitted the execution of the will by their
sister-the will was held to be genuine, and probate was ordered to be granted.
Lilakraj v. Shambhu Nath (1987) 6 Del Rep 110.
Where the executor-husband actively participated in the execution and
attestation of the impugned will by the testatrix-wife, and the husband emerged
as the sole legatee under the will for which probate was applied after a delay
of three years-without any explanation from the executor-and where a competent
witness, though available, was not produced to verify the genuineness of the
will, it was held to be not genuine, and probate was refused.
Dinesh Kumar v.
Khazan Singh (1987) 6 Del Rep 199; (1987) 31 Del LT 388.
In the Supreme Court decision of
Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti AIR 1990 SC 396,
the testator constituted the plaintiff as the sole legatee, excluding any rights
for the testator's wife, which was considered unnatural. The will was not
produced for many years before the court or a public authority, even though
there were occasions to produce it to assert the plaintiff's title to the
property. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court rejected the will as not
genuine.
In another Supreme Court decision,
Rampeari v. Bhagaban AIR 1990 SC 1742,
a disinherited daughter challenged the genuineness of a will allegedly executed
by her father one day before his death, which bequeathed his property to the
sons of her only sister.
The Supreme Court struck down the will based on
findings that it was executed one day before the testator's death, that he
affixed his thumb mark on the will even though he could sign, that when the
scribe reached the beneficiary's house where the will was executed, he found the
testator covered with a quilt in the afternoon of August, with whom he did not
speak or inquire about his health, and that no court recorded any finding of the
dire circumstances of the disinherited daughter (the mother of the
beneficiaries). The Supreme Court further noted that the daughter's happy
marriage and financial stability did not lend credibility to the will.
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email:
[email protected], Ph No: +9051244073
Please Drop Your Comments