Where a will, alleged to have been executed by the propounder's sister, was duly attested by witnesses, and no objection affidavit was filed by one of the contesting brothers-who also admitted the execution of the will by their sister-the will was held to be genuine, and probate was ordered to be granted. Lilakraj v. Shambhu Nath (1987) 6 Del Rep 110.

Where the executor-husband actively participated in the execution and attestation of the impugned will by the testatrix-wife, and the husband emerged as the sole legatee under the will for which probate was applied after a delay of three years-without any explanation from the executor-and where a competent witness, though available, was not produced to verify the genuineness of the will, it was held to be not genuine, and probate was refused. Dinesh Kumar v. Khazan Singh (1987) 6 Del Rep 199; (1987) 31 Del LT 388.

In the Supreme Court decision of Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti AIR 1990 SC 396, the testator constituted the plaintiff as the sole legatee, excluding any rights for the testator's wife, which was considered unnatural. The will was not produced for many years before the court or a public authority, even though there were occasions to produce it to assert the plaintiff's title to the property. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court rejected the will as not genuine.

In another Supreme Court decision, Rampeari v. Bhagaban AIR 1990 SC 1742, a disinherited daughter challenged the genuineness of a will allegedly executed by her father one day before his death, which bequeathed his property to the sons of her only sister.

The Supreme Court struck down the will based on findings that it was executed one day before the testator's death, that he affixed his thumb mark on the will even though he could sign, that when the scribe reached the beneficiary's house where the will was executed, he found the testator covered with a quilt in the afternoon of August, with whom he did not speak or inquire about his health, and that no court recorded any finding of the dire circumstances of the disinherited daughter (the mother of the beneficiaries). The Supreme Court further noted that the daughter's happy marriage and financial stability did not lend credibility to the will.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073