Supreme Court Judgement On Unregistered Will

The Madras High Court decision, Leela v. Muruganantham, pronounced on November 15, 2019, presents a fascinating study of the very complicated nature of the validity of wills, especially with reference to family discord and allegation of undue influence. Justice R. Tharani worked through the nooks and crannies of evidence, testamentary capacity, and the often-acrimonious relationship between inheritance and its recipients.

Background

The dispute arose out of a partition suit instituted by Muruganantham and others (plaintiffs/respondents) for 5/7th share in the properties belonging to the late Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. The crux of the matter lay in the contest between the plaintiffs, who were the children and first wife of Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, and Leela (the first defendant/first appellant), his second wife, along with her sons (the second and third defendants/second and third appellants).

The plaintiffs contested the validity of an unregistered will said to have been executed by Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, in which the properties were given to Leela and her sons so as to exclude the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that Leela's second marriage was invalid, and therefore she was only an illegitimate wife while the sons were illegitimate. They relied on a previous partition deed (Ex.A1) to prove their claim in the properties and alleged the will as a fraudulent document.

The defendants on their part contended that the plaintiffs had already been separated from the family and had no right to the properties, and therefore the will (Ex.B2) remained the legitimate will of Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar.

Key Issues And Legal Principles

The real point at contention was whether the unregistered will was valid. The court inspected the evidence placed by both of the parties on the will's execution and the mental and physical condition of the testator. The provisions like Sections 6, 8, and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, dealing with the inheritance and also those about illegitimate children regarding invalid marriages, were also looked at by the court.

Analysis of Evidence and Suspicious Circumstances

The court placed significant emphasis on the "suspicious circumstances" surrounding the will's execution. These included:

• Location of Execution: The will was executed in Madurai, while Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar resided in Tenkasi, raising questions about the reason for this deviation.
• Attesting Witnesses: The attesting witnesses were related to Leela, which raised concerns about their impartiality.
• Purchase of Stamp Paper: The stamp paper for the will was purchased in Leela's name, further fueling suspicion of her involvement in its creation.
• Contradictory Evidence: The evidence regarding Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar's health was contradictory, with one witness stating he was suffering from ailments, while the will itself mentioned his sound mental and physical status.
• Signature Discrepancies: A witness pointed out variations in the testator's signature between the partition deed (Ex.A1) and the will (Ex.B2), raising doubts about the will's authenticity.
• Lack of Notary Endorsement: The notary public did not endorse that the will was read over to the testator, which is a crucial aspect of ensuring the testator's understanding of the document's contents.

Decision and Implications

The Madras High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court to deny any relief to the plaintiffs on the ground for a 5/7th share in the suit properties within the ambit of the law. The court ruled that the marriage of Leela with Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar was null and void on the ground that the first marriage subsisted, and hence, she and her sons are not entitled to any share at all in the properties.

This really affirms the commitment of the courts to scrutinizing wills in a perfectly suspicious environment. It also must be remembered that:

• Wills must be properly executed and attested.
• The testator must have sound mental and physical capacity at the time of execution.
• Undue influence or coercion must be proved nil.
• Transparency and impartiality must be maintained in the making of the will.

This case also shows the difficulty of a court when dealing with family matters about the right of inheritance, especially when marriages multiply and allegations of illegitimacy mix in.

Conclusion

The case of Leela v. Muruganantham is a wake-up call regarding the legal wade of complexity and evidentiary burdens in testamentary disputes. It recognizes the obligation of the judiciary in upholding the principle of justice and openness regarding indiscriminately opened-inheritance matters, but at the same time, it also tends to the legal rights of the legitimate heirs. The courts have also available to them this legal precedent, with which they may focus on suspicious circumstances, ensuring that wills are not become tools for fraud or manipulation.

FAQs

A few FAQs are:

Q1. What is the burden of proof when an unregistered will is contested?

The person presenting the unregistered will has the burden of providing compelling evidence to dispel any doubts about its genuineness, especially if "suspicious circumstances" exist.

Q2. Does registration of a will guarantee its validity?

No, while registration adds a layer of authenticity, it does not automatically validate a will. Courts will still scrutinize the will's execution and the testator's mental state. Mere registration does not validate a will.

Q3. What role do attesting witnesses play in proving a will?

Attesting witnesses are crucial. Their testimony can confirm that the testator signed the will in their presence, in a sound state of mind, and without undue influence.

Q4. Can a court compare signatures to determine the authenticity of a will?

Yes, courts have the power to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures to assess the will's authenticity.

Q5. What happens if there are contradictions in the evidence regarding the testator's health?

Contradictory evidence regarding the testator's health can raise doubts about their mental capacity and whether the will reflects their free will.