HC Says Burden Of Proof On Will Rests On Person Who Claim It
The appellant claimed that the property was the self-acquired asset of his father, who had executed a Will on July 10, 1964. According to him, the Will granted his mother a life interest in the property and, after her lifetime, conferred absolute ownership on him
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the burden of proving the genuineness of a Will rested on the person who claimed rights under it. When suspicious circumstances surround a Will, stronger and more convincing evidence was required to establish its authenticity, the court said.
A division bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by one Dr Prabhuji Patange and upholding the judgment of the trial court in a long-standing family property dispute concerning a house measuring 275 square yards in Feelkhana here.
The appellant claimed that the property was the self-acquired asset of his father, who had executed a Will on July 10, 1964. According to him, the Will granted his mother a life interest in the property and, after her lifetime, conferred absolute ownership on him. He stated that his father died in 1979 and his mother remained in possession of the property until her death in 1999. The Will, he claimed, was discovered only thereafter in a sealed cover kept inside an almirah.
The High Court found the circumstances surrounding the alleged Will highly suspicious. It questioned how a Will purportedly executed in 1964 remained undisclosed for nearly 35 years and surfaced only after the deaths of both parents. The bench observed that it was difficult to accept that a sealed cover containing such an important document could remain untouched in an almirah for about two decades.
The court also noted that although the testator had six daughters, the Will referred to only five of them and omitted the name of one daughter, who was a defendant in the case. This omission, the bench held, further strengthened doubts regarding the document's authenticity.
The respondents, Amrutha and Sharada, had contended that the Will was fabricated and that there was no reason for their father to execute such a document in 1964 when he was reportedly in good health. They argued that the property should devolve equally upon all legal heirs.
The High Court observed that although the appellant claimed that the Will had been attested by three witnesses, no reliable evidence was produced to establish their signatures or handwriting. The witness examined before the court was merely the son of one of the alleged attesting witnesses, whose testimony was insufficient to prove due execution of the Will.
The bench pointed out that the appellant had failed to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite the disputes regarding the authenticity of the signatures. The court held that the appellant had not produced any convincing evidence to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the document.
Taking note of the strained relationship among family members and the existence of criminal allegations between them, the court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and committed no legal error or perversity. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the alleged Will had not been proved in accordance with law.
