The Apex Court in the case of Ashutosh Samanta (D) By LRS & Ors Vs SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors held that wills cannot be proved only based on their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
It was opined that Section 69 of the Evidence Act of 1872 is applicable when attesting witnesses may have died or cannot be found, Propounder is not left helpless.
Brief Facts:
The Testator left his estate to his three heirs, two sons and a grandson (whose father was not granted any share) A partition deed between these three co-sharers was drawn on 21.02.1945. Upendra (father of the grandson who was allotted a share), signed a document of disclaimer for a portion of the properties sold by his son out of his share and agreed to this arrangement.
Thereafter, the present Appellant filed a suit for partition and possession because he was in possession of a portion of the Testator's estate and he had purchased them from Upendra. However, the Suit was dismissed on the ground that the present Appellant had no title. The judgment was reversed by the Appellate court.
Thereafter, administration proceedings were initiated and the Trial Court ruled that the Respondent was entitled to the letters of administration. Against this, an appeal was preferred which got rejected. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the Courts have ignored the will and granted the letter of administration in the absence of any evidence to substantiate that the will was executed properly. It was further contended that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will that raised questions about its credibility. Further, the excessive delay in reaching the Court should have nullified the request for letters of administration.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court held that wills cannot be proved only based on their age; wills must also be proven in accordance with Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and there is no presumption under Section 90 about the regularity of documents older than 30 years.
Further, there may be situations when wills which otherwise may have satisfied the requirements of being attested, as provided by law, cannot be proved in terms of the said two provisions, for the reason that the attesting witnesses are not available, or if one of the witnesses denies having attested the will. Sections 69 and 71 of the Evidence Act of 1872 then come to the aid of the Propounder.
It was opined that Section 69 of the Evidence Act of 1872 is applicable when attesting witnesses may have died or cannot be found.
In the present case, both the attesting witnesses had died. The Testator's two sons gave testimony about being present when he signed the will. Also, they were able to place signatures, who wrote and signed the will. Also, one Phani Bhusan Bhuiya (PW-4) was deposed. This witness was well-educated. He testified on the circumstances surrounding the will's signing, including who was there, where it was signed, and when. In addition, the witness stood up to cross-examination. Further, will was registered as well.
Based on these considerations, the Bench held that the will was duly executed, and the Propounder/Respondent was successful in proving it.
The decision of the Court:
With the above directions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Respondent was successful in proving the will and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ashutosh Samanta (D) By LRS & Ors Vs SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.7775 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 181 SC
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Ranjan Mukherjee
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Subhro Sanyal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
