Article 14 Not Applicable To a Will; Will’s Genuineness Not Based On Whether Distribution Was Fair & Equitable

Case: Swarnalatha vs Kalavathy

Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian

Case No.: CA 1565 of 2022

Court Observation: “In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.”

“When it was not even the case of the respondents that the testators were not in a sound and disposing state of mind, the High Court found fault with the appellants for not disclosing the nature of the ailments suffered by them. The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. The reasons given in Exhibit P­1 are more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way. If Exhibit P­1 (Will) had been fabricated on blank papers containing the signatures of the mother, there would have been no occasion for the father to make a mention in his own Will (Exhibit P­2) about the execution of the Will by the mother.”

“It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right from H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma . But cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.”

Previous Posts

Threshold of Public Interest Must To Prevent Bypassing of Civil Courts for Enforcement of Contractual Obligations: Bombay High Court

Using Term Straight Shooter in Message Doesnt Amount to Extortion or Criminal Intimidation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Right To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement Before Intended Date Lost By Accepting Post-Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court

CPC Second Appeal Can’t Interfere With Orders Solely On Ground of Sympathy, Substantial Question of Law Must: Delhi High Court

Interest Liability under GST Can’t Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court

In Absence of Specific Pleading by Party about Self Acquired Suit Property, It Is Presumed To Be Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Can Exercise Writ Jurisdiction against Private Party That Wrongly Benefits From Inaction of Public Authorities in Discharge of Public Duty: Bombay HC

No One Can Be Permitted to Take the Benefit of a Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court

No Illegality in Senior Lawyer Filing Joint Vakalat Along With Junior Counsel for Client: Kerala High Court

Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension Download Judgement