The Supreme Court in a recent ruling highlighted the crucial importance of adhering strictly to Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) when proving the authenticity of a will in cases where attesting witnesses cannot be found. The Apex Court noted that wills can't be proved as per Section 69 of the Act by a random witness saying he saw attesting witness signing it.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Nalini Kanth, claimed to be the adopted son of a woman, asserting his right to inherit her property. According to Kanth, the alleged adoption took place in the 1980s when he was less than a year old. The woman passed away three months after the purported adoption, leaving behind a will that designated Kanth as the sole inheritor of her estate.
Contentions of the Parties:
The central contention in the case arose from the challenge posed by Kaliprasad, the grandson of the deceased woman, who contested Kanth's claim to the property. The key issues revolved around the authenticity of the adoption and the validity of the will. Kanth argued that he was entitled to a share in the woman's property based on the alleged adoption and the will. On the other hand, Kaliprasad challenged the adoption deed's legitimacy and questioned the validity of the will, contending that he was the rightful heir to the property. The trial court initially ruled in favour of Kanth, but on appeal, the High Court reversed the decision, questioning the validity of the adoption deed. The trial court's initial ruling in Kanth's favour was later overturned by the High Court, which cast doubt on the adoption deed's sustainability. The High Court's decision prompted Kanth to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the ruling.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented, revealing multiple discrepancies in the alleged adoption and will. The Court found that the contents of the will seemed to be dictated by someone other than the testator, and the scribe admitted to not witnessing the actual signing. Furthermore, the attesting witnesses were not seen signing the document.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court stated that Section 69 of the Act could have been utilized to validate the will but pointed out that no witness familiar with the attesting witnesses' signatures was presented before the trial court.
The Court also raised doubts about the adoption process, citing the absence of essential elements required by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It noted that there was no evidence of the actual "giving and taking" of the child in adoption, a mandatory requirement under the law.
The Court expressed scepticism about the believability of the adoption itself, given the lack of evidence and the unrealistic expectation that Kanth, a toddler at the time of the testator's death, would perform the funeral rites.
Decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed Kanth's claim, upholding the High Court's decision. The ruling emphasized the need for strict compliance with the Act, asserting that the mere registration of a will does not confer automatic validity.
Case Name: Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. CT Ravikumar and Justice Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 873 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv. Mr. Y. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. Mr. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
