Holding

The 1978 will is valid and there are no vitiating circumstances, so the succession certificate may be issued to Mahaveer Prasad.

Summary

The deceased Kanhaiya Lal executed three wills, the last dated 15 November 1978, bequeathing his property to his adopted son Mahaveer Prasad. The non‑adopted family members challenged the 1978 will as a forgery and claimed the earlier registered will of 23 December 1974 was the last valid testament. The trial court held the 1978 will invalid, but the Rajasthan High Court reversed that decision, accepting the testimony of two attesting witnesses, the endorsement of two handwriting experts and a forensic laboratory report, and noting the support of the testator's wife and daughter. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no vitiating or suspicious circumstances, concluding that the 1978 will was duly executed and attested. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order and dismissed the appeals, allowing the issuance of a succession certificate in favour of Mahaveer Prasad.

Issues considered

Whether the will dated 15 November 1978 was validly executed and attested under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Whether any vitiating circumstances rendered the 1978 will invalid.
Whether the earlier will of 23 December 1974 remained the last valid testament.
Whether the adoption of Mahaveer Prasad conferred inheritance rights independent of the will.

Legislation cited

Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 372

Subjects

WillSuccession certificateAdoptionIndian Succession ActHandwriting expertForensic reportValidity of willProbate

Judgment

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 266

A SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS.
v.
MR. MAHAVEER PRASAD
(Civil Appeal Nos.1630-31 of 2010)
B
02JULY,2015
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Will- Validity of-Application u/s. 372 of Succession
c Act, 1925 by adopted son of testator on the strength of Will
dated 15.11.1978 - Validity of the Will challenged - Trial
Court rejected the application holding the Will to be invalid -
Single as well as Division Bench of High Court, reversed the
order of trial court, and directed issuance of Succession
D Certificate - On appeal, held: Two witnesses have
satisfactorily proved the execution of the Will and the
attestation thereof by tWo witnesses- Signature of the testator
has been endorsed by two handwriting experts vyhich was
corroborated by forensic report- Widow and daughter of the
E Testator supported the case of the applicant- Thus there is
no vitiating or suspicious circumstance invalidating the
bequest- Succession Act, 1925 - s. 372.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: 1. Undisputedly, the Respondent No. 1 had
been adopted by the testator in the year 1962 and had
become a part of the family thereby. As the Will dated
15.11.1978, Exh. 2 would reveal, it was preceded by two
G Wills dated 01.11.1962 and 23.12.1974 which witnessed
different patterns of disposition of the properties
mentioned therein. The Will dated 15.11.1978, as the
recital thereof would reveal, superseded the earlier Wills
dated 01.11.1962 and 23.12.1974. On a perusal of the
H evidence of AW 3 and AW 4 it is apparent that these two
266
SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER 267
PRASAD

witnesses have been able to satisfac;:torily prove the A
execution of the Will dated 15.11.1978 and the attestation
thereof by two witnesses, as required in law. The
signature of the testator on these documents has been
endorsed by two handwriting experts. The report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory also corroborates this B
finding. The recitals of the Will, Exh·.2, also provide
sufficient justification for the bequest in favour of
Respondent No. 1. The fact that wife and daughter of
the testator had, at all relevant time, supported
Respondent No. 1 in his initiatives· to obtain the C
succession certificate is also a formidable factor in his
favour as well as in endorsement of the genuineness of
the Will, 15.11.1978. Though, the Will dated 23.12.1974
had been registered, no steps had been taken by the D
non-applicants to obtain the probate thereof. [Paras 13
and 14) [274.-E-G; 275-E-H; 276-A]

2. In the factual background, the dispensation
made by the testator in favour of Respondent No. 1
cannot be repudiated to be in defiance of logic or unfair, E
vis-a-vis the other members of the family. There is no
vitiating or suspicious circumstance invalidating the
bequest. [Para 14) [276-0)

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. F
1630-1631 of2010 ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2003 in S.
B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 414 of 1997 of the High Court of
Rajasthan at Jodhpur. G

Madhurima Tatia for the Appellants.

YashankAdhyeru, Aruna Gapta, Sumita Hazarika for
the Respondent.
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 10 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The present appeals, mount an
assailment against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2003
rendered by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature
B for Rajasthan, allowing SB Civil Misc.Appeal No. 414/19.97,
preferred before it, by the Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad
against the verdict of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated
24.5.1997, in Original Civil Case No. 32/1992, instituted by
him under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for
C issuance of succession certificate in his favour, as well as the
judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed in Division
Bench Civil Special Appeal No.187/2003 rendered by a
Division Bench of the High Court sustaining the decision dated
25.09.2003 above referred to. Aggrieved on both the counts,
D the non-applicants in the succession certificate proceedings
are in appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The facts in pare minimum as offered by the rival
E pleadings, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the
Respondent No.1, Velchand had_ two sons, Amba Lal and
Kanhaiya Lal. Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad was the
son of Amba Lal who died in 1956. The other siblings of
Respondent No. 1 were Shanti Lal, Chhabi Lal and Shakuntala
F Bai, the Appellant No. 1 herein. Chhabi Lal died leaving behind
Shakuntala Jain, the Appellant No. 2, his widow and daughter
Vishakha Jain, Appellant No. 3. The Respondent No. 1 was
taken in adoption by Kanhaiya Lal, who had no son, in the
year 1962, and a registered deed of adoption was executed
G on 30.10.1962 .. Kanhaiya Lal died on 06.01.1992 leaving
besides his adopted son, Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer
Prasad, his wife Sohanbai and his daughter Kantabai.
Sohanbai died on 01.03.2001 and Kantabai on 25.11.2007
H leaving behind two daughters, named Vijay Lakshmi and
SMT. SHAKUNTALABAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER 269
PRASAD [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

Kanchan Devi, Appellant No. 4 and 5 respectively. In due A
course, the name of Kantabai who had died during the
pendency of the instant appeals, was deleted from the array
of the parties.

3. The respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad, filed an B
application before the learned Trial Court under Section 372
of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (for short hereinafter referred
to as 'theAe;t') for issuance of succession certificate, to enable
him to collect the rent from the tenants of the ground floor and
basement thereunder of the property of Kanhaiya Lal (who was C
by then dead) situated at Plot No. 2, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur and
the deposits in the bank account of the deceased. This was
preceded by a Will dated 15.11.1978, which the Respondent
No. 1 claimed to have been executed by Kanhaiya Lal,
bequeathing property mentioned therein to him. As the records D
would reveal, this Will was in supersession of earlier Wills dated
01.11.1962 and 23.12.1974. The Respondent No. 1 founded
his application for succession of certificate on the Will dated
15.11.1978, which according to him was the last in the line,
validly executed by the testator Kanhaiya Lal. While non- E
applicant No. 1 and 2, Sohanbai (wife of Kan~aiya Lal) and
Kantabai (daughter of Kanhaiya Lal) in their written-statement
· supported the application of the Respondent No.1 and pleaded
that the succession certificate may be issued him as prayed F
for, the non-applicant No. 3 and 4 Chhabi Lal and Shakuntla
alleged that the Will dated 15.11.1978 was a fictitious one and
asserted that the one dated 23.12.1974, was the last valid
Will of Kanhaiya Lal. Non-applicant No. 5 and 6 Vijay Lakshmi
and Kanchan Devi, both daughters of Kantabai, did also G
· avowed that the Will dated 15.11.1978 was a fake document
and the one dated 23.12.1974 was the last valid Will for the
testator above named.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the H
learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1OS.C.R.

A "1. If deceased Shri Kanhaiya Lal had adopted applicant
Shri Mahaveer Prasad in a legal manner and on
15.11.1978, he had voluntarily executed a legal WILL in
favour of the applicant?

B 2. If on 23.12.1974, deceased Shri Kanhaiya Lal had
executed his Will and deposited with the Registrar,
Udaipur and this Will is last and legal Will of late Shri
Kanhaiya Lal ?

c 3. If applicant Shri Mahaveer Prasad or out of objectors,
who are entitled to get succession certificate?"

4.1 Admittedly by order dated 09.02.2006, the learned
Trial Court deleted the issue No. 2 quoted hereinabove, thus
leaving the issues No. 1 and 3, originally framed, to be decided
0
in the proceedings before it.

5. Both sides adduced evidence, both oral and
documentary. Amongst others, the Will dated 15.11.1978 was
proved as Exh. 2 and the Respondent No. 1 examined himself
E in respect of the said document ano also Mohan Lal AW 3 and
Mangi Lal AW 4, more particularly, to prove the attestation of ·
the said document. He also examined Mr. P S Mamik, a
handwriting expert. The contesting non-applicants also inter-
F alia examined one Shri Achyut, DW 1, a handwriting expert,
apart from other witnesses.

6. The learned Trial Court, on a consideration of the
pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, held that
the Will dated 15.11.1978 was not a valid one and had been
G deceitfully obtained by converting two blank papers, on which
the signatures of the testator Kanhaiya Lal had been procured
by fraud. It instead returned a finding that the Will dated
23.12.1974 was last the valid instrumentof bequest, though
H as adverted to hereinabove th.e issue No. 2, pertaining thereto,
had been deleted.
SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER 271
PRASAD [AMITAVA ROY, J .]

6.1 The learned Trial Court in concluding· as above, A
though did notice the testimony of AW 3 Mohan- Lal, that he
had signed the Will dated 15.11.1978 and that his signatures
had been obtained in such capacity by the testator himself
and further, that he (testator) had also signed on every page of
the document in his presence, disbelieved this witness, B
amongst others on the ground, that he had been at the relevant
point of time, working as a salesman in the shop of the testator
and that he had failed to correctly recollect many facts
pertaining to the strained relationship between the legatee,
the Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Prasad and the testator. The C
learned Trial Court rejected as well the testimony of AW 4 Mangi
Lal, to the effect that his uncle Kanhaiya Lal Kunawat was the
other attesting witness, who had signed the disputed Will, Exh.
2, in proof of attestation of the execution thereof by the testator.
0
7. According to the learned Trial Court, this witness
was not reliable, as the son of Kanhaiya Lal Kunawat though
alive, was not produced as a witness and he (Mangi Lal) too
was the employee of testator. The identification of the
signatures of the testator Kanhaiya Lal Kunawat on the Will, E
Exh. 2, by Mangi Lal was also discarded, on the ground that
he had faltered to correctly recall the year of execution of the
document. The learned Trial Court was of the view, that as at
the relevant time of the family members were living together F
with the Kanhaiya Lal, and shared a cordial relationship, there
was no justification for the disputed Will dated 15.11.1978, by
superseding the earlier bequest made vide the Will dated
23.12.1974.

8. Shri P. S. Mamik, the handwriting expert, examined G
by the Respondent No.1 on an examination of the Will, Exh. 2
and the disputed signatures thereon, had opined that those
were 1n fact of the deceased Kanhaiya l.:al. This witness also
proved his report to this effect, Exh. 3. The learned Trial Court H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A instead relied on· the opinion of Shri Achyut, NAW 1, the
handwriting expert examined by the contesting non applicants
though this witness too had opined that the signatures
appearing on the disputed Will, Exh. 2 were of the testator
Kanhaiya Lal, but had expressed his view that having regard
B to the contents of the document and the spacing of the lines, it
appeared to have been prepared later.

9. Being aggrieved by this determination, the
Respondent No. 1 preferred appeal before the High Court and
C as referred to hereinabove, SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 414/
1997 preferred by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed and DB
Civil Special Appeal No. 87 /2003 instituted by the appellants
was dismissed. The High Court reversed the decision of the
Trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent
D No. 1 herein and directed issuance of the successiqn
certificate in his favour.

o:
1 On an elaborate assessment of the pleadings and
the evidence adduced, the High Court at the threshold, noticed
E the error apparent on the face of the records committed by the
learned Trial Court in examining the rival contentions in the
context of the Will dated 23.12.1974, which was the subject
matter of issue No. 2 that stood deleted. It recorded as well,
that on the consensus of the parties, the disputed Will, Exh. 2
F had been referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory and
that the report furnished did prove that the signatures appearing
thereon were of the testator. It discarded the testimony of NAW
1 Shri Achyut Narayan that though the two sheets of paper
comprising the Will, Exh. 2 did contain the signatures of the
G testator, those had been obtained on blank papers and were
later on converted into the instrument of dispensation. The
High Court held amongst others that the evidence of Mahaveer
Prasad and his ·witnesses Mohan Lal (AW 3) and Mangi Lal
H (AW 4) proved the execution and attestation of the will Exh. 2.
SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI &ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER 273
PRASAD [AMITAVAROY, J.]

The High Court did also take notice of the fact that the A
Respondent No. 1, had been taken in adoption by the testator,
a fact not disputed and that in absence of any Will, he
(Respondent No.1) would have even otherwise, succeeded to
the property of Kanhaiya Lal in that capacity. It viewed
the disputed Will to be an instrument, whereby the status of B
the Respondent No. 1 as the son of the family had been restored
after initial misgivings. It also dismissed the grounds on which
the testimony of attesting witnesses Mohan Lal and that of
Maingi Lal qua attestation by his uncle Kanhaiya Lal Kunawat
had been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The fact that the C
non-applicants, who claimed to be the beneficiaries of the Will
dated 23.12.1974 had not at any point of time sought for a
probate thereof was noticed as well. That the application for
succession certificate made by the Respondent No. 1, was
0
supported by the wife and the daughter of the testator, also
weighed with the High Court in his (Respondent No. 1) favour.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has
strenuously argued that neitherthe execution of the Will, Exh.
2, nor the attestation thereof has been proved and thus the E
High Court was clearly in error in reversing the determination
made by the learned Trial Court. According to her, the last
valid Will of the testat~r Kanhaiya Lal was dated 23.12.1974,
a registered document. She urged that the disputed Will being F
an instrument, whereby patently unfair and illogical
dispensations have been made, is also otherwise rejectable,
being surrounded by several suspicious circumstances, which
the propounder had failed to dispel. In her endeavour to
buttress the above contentions, the learned counsel for the G
appellants, had drawn our attention to the contents of the Wills
dated 23.12.1974 and 15.11.1978.

12. As against this, the learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 urged that the Will, Exh. 2 had been duly H
••
I,
·-...._ ~·

./ -·-" - ,_
·- '
I·
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. ...• ' SMT.' SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER ,
PRASAD [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
275

i'
/~ \' ., ·.~·l , __ ~' I and instead execute the one dated 15.11.1978. Thereby, the .A
A executed by the testator Kanhaiya Lal, as required in law and •
. property referred to therein was bequeathed to Respondent .
in the face of the evidence on record, more particularly, of
: No. 1, who was also entrusted with the responsibility of looking
Mohan Lal (AW 3) arid Mangi Lal (AW 4), the attestation thereof
·after his (testator) wife Sohanbai and daughter Kantabai during ·
also starids established. Apart from the fact that Respondent
· ttieir lifetime. The wife and daughter of the testator, as named
i · ·No. 1, had been adopted by the testator and that he was thus
'. above· were also given full rights to live in the house named , B
B the, ..o'nly son ,of the family
,_ . '
all intents and purposes,. the
. ,, . '
.for · 'Jain Rishabh Bhawan' which stood otherwise bequeathed by
,contents of the Will dated 15.11.1978, did clearly explain the
.·the instrument; in favour of Respondent No. 1 Mahaveer Prasad.
'.bequest in his favour, he maintained. The learnedcounsel ·
The Will mentioned as well, that the testator had written and
:asserted that the fact that the wife and daughter of Kanhaiya
i \ ·. '• ,) l' . '. ' ' . : ' . ' verified the document iri presence of and under the signatures
:i Lal did support the application of the Respondent No. 1 for the
. of two witnesses, namely, Mohan Lal Jain and Kanhaiya Lal c
c 'succession certificate authenticated as well, the validity of the · afterconsiderable thought and voluntarily without any pressure.
'disputed Will, Exh: 2. He pointed out that the succession
These documents, also contained the signatures of Shri Mohan
,certificate was toi-'the rimited purpose'of collectingthe rent
Lal,Jairi· and Shri Kanhaiya Lal/. as witnesses who had
'paid by the tena'nts in respect of the premises; mentioned
· ~ti:t:rs ~:~ t~e s:g~atures of:the t.~stator ther~~~ as ~ertified by ·., 0
1 ~ ,therein and lying in.dep6sitwith thebank and thus in any view
of the matter, the instant appeal lacks in merit and is liable to
1
;\ ,(',..:i:- ,' ' ' ,,.J• . ; ~- ,) :~- , ...
be dismiss.Eid. · · · · ·· · .. ·· · ' ·· ' · .c:;•: ' : 1.4. On a perusal of the evidence of AW 3, Mohan Lal
.;, ,:; f·:.n~· . . ,; ' ' and AW 4, Mangi Lal, it is apparentthat these two witnesses
:. :~ . .13. We have traversed the pleadings, the evidence on
have been able to satisfactorily prove the execution of the Will .
~; .,1record to the extent necessary and have also carefully analysed · dated 15.1.1.1978 and the attestation thereof by two witnesses, "E ·
E . the competin'g a'rguments advanced, Undisputedly, the.
'· as required in law: As adverle'd to herein above, the signature
: Respondent No'. 1 had been adopted by Kanhaiya Lal in the
\of the testator Kanhaiya Lal, on these documents has been
· year 1962 and had become a part of the family thereby.. As
;. el'ldcirsed by both the handwriting experts. The report of the
~the Will dated 15.11.1978, Exh. 2would reveal, it was preceded
_For.:nsic:.Science Labor~~ory also corroborates this finding. 1F
:F· .tiy,tw6Wills· dated .01.1.1.1962 ·and 2~.12,1974.,',.jhich
~rhe view expressed by ShnAchyut Narayan, NAW 1 that though
· 1 witnessed different patterns of disposition of the properties
the signatures are genuine! those had been obtained on blank
-~
.mentioned therein. The Will dated 15.11.1978, as the recital
, , · -, • • • I , '- ' I
papers, which later on were .converted into the Will, in the face
. thereof, would reveal superseded the earlier Wills dated
. of the overwhelming testimony of AW 3, Mohan Lal and AW 4,
'01.11.1962 and 23:12.1974. The contents of this Will, Exh.2
Mangi Lal, had been rightly rejected by the .High Court.; The G
;:;G ~ c!i~closesc that the te~tafor 'being earlier annoyed ~ith
recitals of the Will,.Exh. 2, also provide sufficientjustification
-.... Respondent No. 1 and as advised by others, had sought to
for the bequest in favour of Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer
·disinherit him and with that state of mind had execute'd the Will
Prasad. The factthatwife and daughter of the testator had, at
· dated 23.12.1974. However, following deeper reflections and
all relevant time, supported the Respondent No. 1 in his.
., ...
,
·.·self introspections generally as well as review in.the spiritual
'
H perspectives, he decided to cancel the Will dated 23.12.1974
initiatives to obtain the succession certificate is also a· H
, "
/

/

.-7
I
/
_____..___________ .,,,, ................................ . '
1,1
••
I,
·-...._ ~·

./ -·-" - ,_
·- '
I·
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. ...• ' SMT.' SHAKUNTALA BAI & ORS. v. MR. MAHAVEER ,
PRASAD [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
275

i'
/~ \' ., ·.~·l , __ ~' I and instead execute the one dated 15.11.1978. Thereby, the .A
A executed by the testator Kanhaiya Lal, as required in law and •
. property referred to therein was bequeathed to Respondent .
in the face of the evidence on record, more particularly, of
: No. 1, who was also entrusted with the responsibility of looking
Mohan Lal (AW 3) arid Mangi Lal (AW 4), the attestation thereof
·after his (testator) wife Sohanbai and daughter Kantabai during ·
also starids established. Apart from the fact that Respondent
· ttieir lifetime. The wife and daughter of the testator, as named
i · ·No. 1, had been adopted by the testator and that he was thus
'. above· were also given full rights to live in the house named , B
B the, ..o'nly son ,of the family
,_ . '
all intents and purposes,. the
. ,, . '
.for · 'Jain Rishabh Bhawan' which stood otherwise bequeathed by
,contents of the Will dated 15.11.1978, did clearly explain the
.·the instrument; in favour of Respondent No. 1 Mahaveer Prasad.
'.bequest in his favour, he maintained. The learnedcounsel ·
The Will mentioned as well, that the testator had written and
:asserted that the fact that the wife and daughter of Kanhaiya
i \ ·. '• ,) l' . '. ' ' . : ' . ' verified the document iri presence of and under the signatures
:i Lal did support the application of the Respondent No. 1 for the
. of two witnesses, namely, Mohan Lal Jain and Kanhaiya Lal c
c 'succession certificate authenticated as well, the validity of the · afterconsiderable thought and voluntarily without any pressure.
'disputed Will, Exh: 2. He pointed out that the succession
These documents, also contained the signatures of Shri Mohan
,certificate was toi-'the rimited purpose'of collectingthe rent
Lal,Jairi· and Shri Kanhaiya Lal/. as witnesses who had
'paid by the tena'nts in respect of the premises; mentioned
· ~ti:t:rs ~:~ t~e s:g~atures of:the t.~stator ther~~~ as ~ertified by ·., 0
1 ~ ,therein and lying in.dep6sitwith thebank and thus in any view
of the matter, the instant appeal lacks in merit and is liable to
1
;\ ,(',..:i:- ,' ' ' ,,.J• . ; ~- ,) :~- , ...
be dismiss.Eid. · · · · ·· · .. ·· · ' ·· ' · .c:;•: ' : 1.4. On a perusal of the evidence of AW 3, Mohan Lal
.;, ,:; f·:.n~· . . ,; ' ' and AW 4, Mangi Lal, it is apparentthat these two witnesses
:. :~ . .13. We have traversed the pleadings, the evidence on
have been able to satisfactorily prove the execution of the Will .
~; .,1record to the extent necessary and have also carefully analysed · dated 15.1.1.1978 and the attestation thereof by two witnesses, "E ·
E . the competin'g a'rguments advanced, Undisputedly, the.
'· as required in law: As adverle'd to herein above, the signature
: Respondent No'. 1 had been adopted by Kanhaiya Lal in the
\of the testator Kanhaiya Lal, on these documents has been
· year 1962 and had become a part of the family thereby.. As
;. el'ldcirsed by both the handwriting experts. The report of the
~the Will dated 15.11.1978, Exh. 2would reveal, it was preceded
_For.:nsic:.Science Labor~~ory also corroborates this finding. 1F
:F· .tiy,tw6Wills· dated .01.1.1.1962 ·and 2~.12,1974.,',.jhich
~rhe view expressed by ShnAchyut Narayan, NAW 1 that though
· 1 witnessed different patterns of disposition of the properties
the signatures are genuine! those had been obtained on blank
-~
.mentioned therein. The Will dated 15.11.1978, as the recital
, , · -, • • • I , '- ' I
papers, which later on were .converted into the Will, in the face
. thereof, would reveal superseded the earlier Wills dated
. of the overwhelming testimony of AW 3, Mohan Lal and AW 4,
'01.11.1962 and 23:12.1974. The contents of this Will, Exh.2
Mangi Lal, had been rightly rejected by the .High Court.; The G
;:;G ~ c!i~closesc that the te~tafor 'being earlier annoyed ~ith
recitals of the Will,.Exh. 2, also provide sufficientjustification
-.... Respondent No. 1 and as advised by others, had sought to
for the bequest in favour of Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer
·disinherit him and with that state of mind had execute'd the Will
Prasad. The factthatwife and daughter of the testator had, at
· dated 23.12.1974. However, following deeper reflections and
all relevant time, supported the Respondent No. 1 in his.
., ...
,
·.·self introspections generally as well as review in.the spiritual
'
H perspectives, he decided to cancel the Will dated 23.12.1974
initiatives to obtain the succession certificate is also a· H
, "
/

/

.-7
I
/
_____..___________ .,,,, ................................ . '
1,1
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

A formidable factor in his favour as well as in endorsement of
the genuineness of the Will, 15.11.1978. Noticeably though,
the Will dated 23.12.1974 had been registered, no steps had
been taken by the non-applicants to obtain the probate thereof.
It is not unlikely, that the testator, out of, some disappointment
B and reseNations qua the adopted son, Respondent No. 1 had
in the rush of moment and as advised by the persons interested,
as recited in the Will dated 1.5.11.1978, did momentarily decide
to disinherit the only son of the family. However, on an
equanimous re-consideration and following indepth and
C dispassionate cogitation, he eventually decided again to
bequeath all his properties to him. The approval of the mother
and the sister to this bequest is a strong indicator to this effect.
We are thus of the view, that in the above factual background,
the dispensation made by the testator in favour of the
0
Respqndent Mo. 1 cannot be repudiated to be in defiance of
log!c or unfair vis-a-vis the other members of the family. We
do not find as well, any vitiating or suspicious circumstance
invalidating the bequest.
E 15. The upshot of the above narration is that, the
conclusions recorded by the High Court are plausible being
based on the materials on record and thus do not warrant any
interference in the appeals. On an overall consideration of the
F pleadings and the evidence adduced, the findings of the
learned Trial Court have been rightly reversed. These appeals
thus fail and are dismissed.

16. No cost.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.