Supreme Court of India
LEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS.versusKAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 612
- Decided
- 8 September 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The will is valid; the cumulative assessment of the alleged irregularities does not invalidate the testamentary disposition.
Summary
The mother, K.P. Janaki Amma, executed two wills in 1981 and 1982 bequeathing a house to her daughter Kamala Menon and granddaughter Geetha, expressly excluding her sons. The sons challenged the validity of the later will, alleging undue influence, suspicious circumstances such as the daughter’s involvement in execution, a letter indicating equal partition, non‑production of the original will, and the testator’s lack of English knowledge. The trial court held the will invalid, but the Madras High Court reversed that decision after examining each allegation and finding no fatal defect. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, emphasizing that the will’s clear language, the testator’s discernible intent, and the cumulative assessment of the alleged irregularities did not vitiate the instrument. The Court held that participation of a beneficiary in registration, loss of the original will, and the testator’s limited English do not, by themselves, render a will invalid. Consequently, the wills were upheld and the probate proceeded in favour of the daughter and granddaughter.
Issues considered
- Whether the will dated 11 January 1982 is a valid instrument despite alleged undue influence and suspicious circumstances.
- Whether the participation of a beneficiary in the execution and registration of a will vitiates its validity.
- Whether the non‑production of the original will and reliance on a certified copy affect the probate.
- Whether the testator’s lack of knowledge of English renders the will invalid.
Legislation cited
- Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 281, s. 282
Subjects
WillProbateUndue influenceExclusion of heirsSuspicious circumstancesTestamentary capacityIndian Succession ActCertified copy of willLoss of original will
Judgment
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 697
LEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS. A
V.
KAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9282 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
B
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Will - Legality and validity of - Execution of two Wills by
mother in favour of her spinster daughter and grand daughter,
excluding her sons - No difference in the two Wills - Probate C
proceedings by daughter - Dismissed by t~e trial court holding
that the execution of Will surrounded by suspicious
circumstances - Said order set aside by High Court - On
appeal, helr:J: Will indicates clear 1a11.guage and its
unambiguous purport and effect - Mind of the testator for D
'-exclusion of the sons apparent - Participation of the
beneficiary in the execution and registration of the Will and
getting the attestation done does not warrant any adverse
conclusion - Contents of both ·the Will identical - Attribution
of lack of knowledge. of English to the testator would not effect E
the Will since the contents thereof can be understood to have
been explained to the testator by the Sub Registrar - Also the
non filing of the complaint about the loss of the original Will
would not invalidate the Will - Thus, order passed by the High
Court upheld - Succession Act, 1925. F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1 The judicial verdict, in the last resort, will
be on the basis of a consideration of all the unusual
features appearing in the Will and suspicious G
circumstances put together and not on the impact of any
single feature that may be found in a Will or a singular
circumstance that may appear from the process leading
to its execution or registration. [Para 10) [706-E-F]
697 H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.G.R.
A 1.2 A close reading of the Will indicates its clear
language, and its unambiguous purport and effect. The
mind of the testator is crearly discernible and the reasons
for exclusion of the sons is apparent from the Will itself.
Insofar as the place of execution is concerned, the
B inconsistency appearing in the verification filed alongwith
the application for probate by PW-~ and the oral evidence
of the said witness tendered in Court is capable of being
understood in the light of the fact that the verification is
in a standard form prescribed by the High Court on the
C Original Side. Besides, the participation of the first
respondent in the execution and registration of the Will
as also her conduct in summoning her friend to be an
attesting witness and in taking the testator to the office
of the Sub Registrar does not warrant any adverse
D conclusion. The Will dated 11.1.1982 is identical with the
contents of the earlier Will dated 28.12.1981. No active
participation has been attributed to the first respondent
as regards the execution and registration of the Will dated
28.12.1981. [Para 11] [706-F-G; 707-A-D]
•
E: 1.3 The lack of knowledge of English even if can be
attributed to the testator would not fundamentally alter
the situation inasmuch as before registration of the Will
the contents thereof can be understood to have been
explained to the testator or ascertained from her by the
F Sub Registrar. The non-production of the original Will and
reliance.on the certified copy thereof is a circumstance
which has been reasonably explained by the first
respondent (plaintiff). The stand of the plaintiff that the I
original Will was lost while in the custody of her mother
G and her knowledge of such loss on the day of her
mother's death cannot be disbelieved merely because no
report in this regard was lodged before the police. [Para
12] [707 -E-H]
H
LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 699
COCHARAN
1.4 All the unusual and allegedly suspicious A
circumstances being capable of being understood in the
manner indicated, no fault can be found with the
conclusions reached by the High Court while reversing
the judgment of the trial court. [Para 13] [708-A-B]
B
H. Venkatacbala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and
Ors. 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426; Bharpur Singh and Ors. Vs.
Shamsher Singh 2009(3) SCC 687; Rani Pnmima Debi and
Anr. Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Anr. (1962) 3
SCR 195; Apoline D'souza Vs. John D'souza 2007 (7) SCC
225; Pentakota ·Satyanarayana and Ors. Vs. Pentakota C
Seetharatnam and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 67; Mahesh Kumar
(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. 2012 (4) SCC 387;
Ved Mitra Verma Vs. Dharam Deo Verma 2014 (9) SCALE-
219 - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference:
1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 Referred to Para 8
2009(3) sec 687 Referred to Para 8
E
(1962) 3 SCR 195 Referred to Para 8
2001 (7) sec 225 Referred to Para 8
2005 (8) sec 67 Referred to Para 9
2012 (4) sec 387 Referred to Para 9 F
2014 (9) SCALE 219 Referred to Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9282 of 2010.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2009 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Original Side Appeal No.
185 of 2001.
H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A. WITH
C.A. No. 9286 of 2010
C.A. No. 7004 of 2012
8 Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Harshad V, Hameed,
Dileep Poolarrot, K. Rajeev, P.B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,
Udayaditya Banerjee (For Temple Law Firm), T. Harish Kumar
for the appellants.
C Vijay Hansaria, Muralidhar Reddy, Arjun Singh, G. Balaji,
Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sridhar Potaraju, T.Harish Kumar, Mona
K. Rajvanshi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. All the three appeals being
directed against the common judgment and order of the High
Court dated 18.08.2009 were heard analogously and are being
disposed of by this order.
E 2. In the present appeals, which challenge a judgment of
reversal passed by a Division Bench 'of the High Court of
Madras, determination of what is essentially a question of fact
confronts this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution. The said question is with regard to the
validity and legality of a Will dated 11.1.1982 executed by one
F K.P. Janaki Amma, the mother of the appellants and the first
respondent. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated
23.01.2001 dism.issed the probate proceedings instituted by
the first respondent (later converted into a Suit being T.O.S. No.
16 of 1,994) by holding that the execution of the Will dated
G 11.1.1982 is surrounded by a host of suspicious circumstances
rendering the same legally unacceptable. The aforesaid view
of the learned Trial Judge of the High Court having been
overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court by impugned
order dated 18.08.2009, the present appeals have been filed.
H
LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 701
COCHARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
3. We have heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal ~nd Mr. Dhruv A
Mehta, learned senior counsels as well as Mr. T. Harish Kumar
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Hansaria,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
4. Testator Late Janaki Amma had initially executed a Will 8
dated 28.12.1981 bequeathing house property bearing No. 8,
Malony Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17 in favour of the first
respondent Kamala Menon Cochran and her grand-daughter
Geetha (daughter of her predeceased daughter Leela). The
. said Will, inter alia, contained a recital that the testator had 4 C
sons. In the Will dated 28.12.1981 the testator had
acknowledged that her sons are all well settled in life and had
properties purchased in their names during the life time of their
father. The testator had further stated that she had suffered
extreme bereavement on the death of her daughter Leela which
occurred on 02.02.1975 and therefore out of the deep D
attachment for her grand-daughter, Geetha, and also as her
second daughter K.P. Kamala Menon i.e. respondent No. 1
aged 46 years who is a Principal in a College and a spinster
she is bequeathing the house property in favour of her grand-
daughter and her daughter to the exclusion of her sons. The E
said Will dated 28.12.1981 was superseded/revoked by a
subsequent Will dated 11.1.1982 which contained similar
recitals as in the first Will sJated 28.12.1981 except for the fact
that instead of 4 sons the testator mentioned that she had 5
living sons. After the death of Janaki Amma which occurred on F
27.04.1991 the respondent No. 1 had instituted a probate
proceedings which was later converted into a suit, as the Will
was disputed by the sons of the deceased.
5. The appellants who were the defendants in the suit and G
respondents before the High Court had contested the legal
validity of the Will dated 11.1.1982 by asserting that the same
was not a valid instrument of conveyance executed on the free
volition of the testator; rather it was dictated at the instance of
the first respondent-daughter who had exercised undue H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A influence and coercion on the testator. To substantiate the
contentions advanced, the contesting defendants had led
evidence to show that the Will was executed in circumstances
which give rise to serious doubts, with regard to its voluntary
execution by the testator.
B
6. The learned Trial Court on a consideration cif the cases
of the parties and the evidence and materials adduced took
note of the following circumstances surrounding the execution
of the Will:
C (i) No specific reason was disclosed as to why the
sons i.e. the present appellants had been excluded
from the Will;
(ii) At the time of execution of the Will the respondent
D No. 1 had come down from Tirupathi where she was
working as a college teacher/Principal to Madras
and was staying with the mother i.e. the testator; ·
(iii) Only a fortnight earlier to the execution of the Will
i.e. on 10.12.1981 the testator had written a letter
E (Ex. P8) to one of her sons Thangamani
(Predecessor-in-interest of appellants in C.A. No.
9282 of 2010) expressing her intention to partition
the house property, which was the subject matter
of Will, equally among all the children;
F
(iv) Non-production of the original copy of the Will;
(v) The discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses
of the plaintiff with regard to the place of execution
of th~ Will; and
(vi) The prominent part played by the plaintiff
(respondent No. 1 herein) in the registration of the
Will.
These circumstances, according to the learned Trial Court,
H
LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 703
COCHARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
were suspicious enough to justify a conclusion that the Will A
ought not to be accepted as a valid instrument executed on the
free will and volition of the testator.
7. In appeal, the High Court, on consideration of the
grounds and reasons which had persuaded the learned Trial ·
8
Court to take the above view, thought it proper to disagree with
the same and reverse "the consequential findings. It may be
noticed, at this stage, that in its very elaborate order the High
Court had gone into each of the circumstances mentioned
above; the evidence in support thereof as adduced by the C,
parties and the arguments advanced before reversing the
findings of the learned Trial Court.
8. Learned counsels for the appellants, in all the three'
appeals before us, submitted that between 11.1.1982 Le.
alleged date of execution of the Will and 27.4.1991 i.e. date of o
death of the testator, the beneficiaries under the Will had not
informed anybody about the existence of the Will which
according to the learned counsel is unnatural. Pointing out the ·
evidence with regard to. the place of execution of the Will,
learned counsel have contended that there is an apparent E
inconsistency in this regard inasmuch as while in the verification
1
submitted alongwith the probate petition as required under
Sections 281 and 282 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 PW-
3 had claimed that the Will was executed in the house of the
testator, in her evidence, PW-3, had stated that the same was
executed in the office of the Sub-Registrar. However, PW-4, the
F
Sub-Registrar who was examined did not categorically depose
about the place where the Will was executed. Reference has
been made by the learned counsels for the appellants to other
suspicious circumstances, enumerated here.inabove, to
contend that the -same are sufficient and adequate to justify G
rejection of the Will in question. Specifically, it was argued that
no explanation has been offered for non-production of the
original Will and the High Court has accepted the story of loss
of the Will on the mere statement of the first respondent. On
the said basis it is contended that the first respondent, as the H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A Plaintiff, could not have led secondary evidence in support of
the Will in the absence of clear and convincing proof of the loss
of the original Will. Bringing in a different set of attesting
witnesses in place of the witnesses who had attested the
execution of the first Will dated 28.12.1981; the non-
B examination of the attesting witness Seetha Padmanabhan and
the examination of the second witness (PW-3) Jaya Lakshmi
who was a colleague of the plaintiff are other circumstances
which the learned counsel for the appellants contends to be
highly suspicious. The absence of any evidence to show the
c lack of cordial relationship between the testator and her sons
and the fact that defendant No. 4 i.e. one of the sons was
actually looking after the mother has also been stressed upon
to point out that there was no reason to exclude the sons under
the Will. In fact, learned counsels for the appellants have pointed
out that PW-2 and PW-3 had clearly and categorically stated
0
that the relationship between the testator and her sons was
good. It is further argued that the letter dated 10.12.1981 (Ex.
P8) of the mother to one of the sons, properly read, indicates
a very cordial relationship and the purport thereof has been
thoroughly misinterpreted by the High Court to come to the
E impugned findings and conclusions. The lack of knowledge of/
English on the part of the testator has also been cited as 1
another circumstance to justify its rejection. Reliance has been'
placed on behalf of the appellants on the decision of this Court
in H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. 8.N. Thimmajamma and
F Others1 as well as on a more recent pronouncement in Bharpur
Singh and Others Vs. Shamsher Singh 2 to contend that active
participation of the first respondent in execution and registration
of the Will ought to be viewed by us as raising serious doubts
with regard to the voluntary execution of the Will by the testator.
G Two other decisions of this Court in Rani Pnrnima Debi and
Another Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Another
1. (1959 Supp (1) SCR 426.
2. 2009(3) sec 687.
H 3. (1962) 3 SCR 195.
LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 705
COCHARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
and Apoline D'souza Vs. John D'souza 4 have also been A
placed to contend that the absence of any evidence to show
that the Will was read over and explained to the testator, in view
of her lack of knowledge of English, would be crucial for
determination of the authenticity of the Will in question.
B
9. Opposing the arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellants, Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No. 1 has argued that the acceptance
or rejection of the Will, in the ultimate analysis would depend
on the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court with C
regard to its due execution. Shri Hansaria has submitted that
no single circumstance would be determinative of the question
and it is the cumulative effect thereof which would be vital to
the adjudication required to be made by the Court. The mere
participation of the first respondent in the execution and
registration of the Will; her presence in Madras at the time of D
execution of the Will wHI in no way affect the validity thereof, it
is contended. Insofar as the discrepancy in the place of
execution of the Will is concerned, Shri Hansaria has pointed
out that the verification filed alongwith the application for
probate was ;n the standard form prescribed by the Original E
Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Form
No. 55 which mentions the place of execution as the House of
....... ). Insofar as the loss of the original Will is concerned it is
submitted that the same was in custody of the testator and was
found to be missing only after her death. It is in these F
circumstances that the probate proceedings were instituted on
the basis of the certified copy of the Will which is authorised
under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Insofar as
the issue with regard to knowledge of English of the testator is
concerned, apart from pointing out the relevant part of the G
evidence of the witnesses to show that the testator could read
and understand English, it is argued that PW-4 (Sub-Registrar)
had deposed that in all cases of registration the testator is
asked whether he/she is aware of the contents of the Will. Shri
4. 2001 (7) sec 22s. I-I_
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A Hansa'ria has cited the decision of this Court in Pentakota
Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and
Others5 to contend that mere active participation in the
registration of the Will by itself would not be a vitiating factor.
Reliance has also been placed on two decisions of this Court
B in Mahesh Kumar (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumar and
Others 6 and Ved Mitra Verma Vs. Dharam Deo Verma 7 to
show that mere exclusion of the other heirs will not vitiate the
disposition made by a Will.
10. A Will may have certain features and may have been
C executed in certain circumstances which may appear to be
somewhat unnatural. Such unusual features appearing in a Will
or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution will
definitely justify a close scrutiny before the same can be
accepted. It is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis
D of such scrutiny; the cumulative effect of the unusual features
and circumstances which would weigh with the Court in the
determination required to be made by it. The judicial verdict,
in the last resort, will be on the basis of a consideration of all
the unusual features and suspicious circumstances put together
E and not on the impact of any single feature that may be found
in a Will or a singular circumstance that may appear from the
process leading to its execution or registration. This, is the
essence of the repeated pronouncements made by this Court
on the subject including the decisions referred to and relied
i= upon before us.
11. In the present case, a close reading of the Will
indicates its clear language, and its unambiguous purport and
effect. The mind of the testator is clearly discernible and the
reasons for exclusion of the sons is apparent from the Will itself.
G Insofar as the place of execution is concerned, the'
inconsistency appearing in the verification filed alongwith the
5. 2005 (8) sec 67.
6. 2012 (4) sec 387.
H 7. 2014 (9) SCALE 219.
LEELA RAJAGOPAL v. KAMALA MENON 707
COCHARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
application for probate by PW-3 and the oral evidence of the A
said witness tendered in Court is capable of being understood
in the light of the fact that the verification is in a standard form
(Form No. 55) prescribed by the Madras High Court on the
'
Original Side, as already noticed. Besides, in the facts of the
present case the participation of the first respondent in the 8
execution and registration of the Will cannot be said to be a
circumstance that would warrant an adverse conclusion. The
conduct of the first respondent in summoning her friend (PW-
3) to be an attesting witness and in taking the testator to the
office of the Sub Registrar should, again, not warrant any C
adverse conclusion. It also cannot escape notice that the Will
dated 11.1.1982 is identical with the contents of the earlier Will
dated 28.12.1981. Insofar as the execution of the Will dated
28.12.1981 and its registration is concerned no active
participation has been attributed to the first respondent. The
change of the attesting witnesses and the non-examination of 0
Seetha Padmanabhan who had attested the second Will dated
11.1.1982 has been sufficiently explained.
12. The lack of knowledge of English even if can be
attributed to the testator would not fundamentally alter the E
situation inasmuch as before registration of the Will the contents
thereof can be understood to have been explained to the
testator or ascertained from her by the Sub Registrar, PW-4,
who had deposed that such a practice is normally adhered to.
The non-production of the original Will and reliance on the F
certified copy thereof is a circumstance which has been
reasonably explained by the first respondent (plaintiff). The
original Will, after its execution on 11.1.1982, was in the custody
of the testator and it is only on the day or her death i.e.
27.4.1991 that the first respondent (plaintiff) could find that the G
Will was missing from the envelope marked 'KPP Will'. The
stand of the plaintiff that the original Will was lost while in the
custody of her mother and her knowledge of such loss on the
day of her mother's death cannot be disbelieved merely
because no report in this regard was lodged before the police. H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A 13. All the unusual and allegedly suspicious circumstances
being capable of being understood in the manner indicated
above, we cannot find any fault with the conclusions reached
by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the learned
Trial Court.
B
14. Before parting we would like to observe that the very
fact that an appeal to this Court can be lodged only upon grant
of special leave to appeal would indicate the highly
circumscribed nature of the jurisdiction of this Court. In contrast
to a statutory appeal, an appeal lodged upon grant of special
C leave pursuant to a provision of the Constitution would call for
highly economic exercise of the power which though wide to
strike at injustice wherever it occurs must display highly judicious
application thereof. Determination of facts made by the High
Court sitting as a first appellate court or even while concurring
D as a second appellate court would not be reopened unless the
same give rise to questions of law that require a serious
debate or discloses wholly unacceptable conclusions of fact
which plainly demonstrate a travesty of justice. Appreciation or
re-appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage
E of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the
constitutional court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136.
'
15. We, accordingly, dismiss these appeals affirm the
order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the
F High Court in Original Side Appeal No. 185 of 2001. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order
as to cost.
Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Will"Sign in to search