Murthy & Ors vs C.

Saradambal & Ors

In the Supreme Court of India

Justice B.V Nagarathna
Judgment delivered on: 10.12.2021

Facts

The Defendants claimed their share in the property upon the death of their father. In response,
the Plaintiff (daughter-in-law of the deceased) alleged that the said property was given to her
husband, the deceased’s only son, by an unregistered Will depriving her two daughters
(Defendants) of the property. She filed a suit for the grant of Letters of Administration based
on the said Will. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit.

Impugned Judgment

The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge
without assigning reasons for doing so.

Defendant’s contention

The Defendants contested the authenticity of the Will on the following grounds:
- The Testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind prior to his death, as he
was suffering from a paralytic attack. He was also unable to write. However,
according to the Plaintiffs, the Will was executed only 15 days before his death.
- The First Plaintiff's husband and son of the Testator, who was a practising advocate,
was unaware of the execution of the Will during his lifetime, and the Will had not
seen the light of the day for nearly fifteen years.
- The Attestor was not known to the deceased Testator. Moreover, there were
conflicting testimonies given by the Plaintiff and the Attestor, raising questions on
their credibility.
- The signature on the Will does not tally with the Testator's signatures on other
documents.
What did the Court do?

The Court dismissed the suit and set aside the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of
the High Court.

The Court observed that the onus is placed upon the propounder of the Will to remove all
suspicious circumstances concerning the execution of the Will. The propounder has to satisfy
the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Will to the satisfaction of the
conscience of the Court, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the very execution of
the Will have not been cleared by any cogent evidence.

The Court further observed that Appellate Courts must assign reasons while writing a
judgment of reversal. Even while interfering with the finding of fact, it has to assign cogent
reasons for doing so as the findings are immune from challenge in a second appeal.