Execution of a will by the father in favour of his son for taking care of him and his wife during their old age, excluding other sons or daughters on the ground that they had neglected him during his last days will not draw an inference of suspicion or invalidate the will, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya said the suspicion or doubt on a will could be raised if the will was executed in favour of the third party from outside and not in favour of the natural legal heirs of the deceased. Further in case priority in the will was given only to some of the legal heirs in comparison to other natural legal heirs, on this very reason, the will could not be held as invalid, the Bench said.
Writing the judgment Justice Singhvi said that active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the will or exclusion of the natural heirs could not lead to an inference that the will was not genuine.
In the instant case the deceased Harishankar bequeathed his entire share in the joint family property to the appellant son Mahesh Kumar (since dead and represented by his legal heirs). The appellant's two brothers, Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar, filed a suit before a fast track court in Madhya Pradesh seeking share in the rent in the joint family property and it was dismissed. On appeal, a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decreed the suit in their favour and held that they would be entitled to a share in the property. The present appeal by Mahesh Kumar is directed against this judgment.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said the fact that the appellant was present at the time of execution of the will dated February 10, 1992 and that the testator did not give anything to respondents (other two brothers Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar) from his share in the joint family property were not decisive of the issue relating to genuineness or validity of the will.
The Bench said: “The evidence produced by the parties unmistakably show that the respondent No. 2 (Anand Kumar) had separated from the family in 1965 after taking his share and respondent No. 1 (Vinod Kumar) also got his share in the second partition which took place in 1985. The attitude of Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar left deceased Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with the appellant, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness.”
“Therefore, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant. Any person or ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his share in the property,” it said.
“We hold that the single judge was clearly in error in reversing the well-reasoned finding recorded by the trial court on the issues of execution of will dated February 10, 1992 by Harishankar and its genuineness and validity,” the Bench said and set aside the impugned judgment.
