-
SUCCESSION
1.1 The manner of distribution of a person’s property after
his death is determined by the fact whether the deceased has
made a Will or not. All civilised societies have recognised the
right of an individual to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
This right of disposal includes the right to dispose properties in
a manner so as to take effect after the death of a person. Such a
right can be exercised by making an instrument known as Will,
during the lifetime of a person. Person making a Will in such
a case is known as 'testator’ and distribution taking place after
death of the testator as per his Will is known as 'Testamentary'
succession.
1.2 In case of a person who dies without making a Will, the
property passes by inheritance as per the personal law of the
deceased. Devolution of property of such a person after his death
is known as 'Intestate’ succession. In India, laws governing such
intestate succession are the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (I.S.
Act) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Mohammedan Law. These
laws by and large provide for the manner of devolution of the
properties of the deceased who has died without making a Will,
amongst his legal heirs. They provide amongst other things,
rules as to who are the persons entitled to receive the estate of
the deceased and in what proportion. They also lay down the
manner in which the estate of the deceased is to be administered.
1.3 Relevance of domicile/location of a property
For purposes of determining applicability of laws in case
of a succession, it is necessary to determine the domicile of the
deceased. In case of an immovable property located in India,
the laws of succession prevailing in India would determine the
successors of such property. In case of movable properties, the
laws governing the country of domicile of the deceased would
determine the successors of the property. Domicile is relevant
for movable properties while location is relevant for immovable
property.
1.4 Intestate succession as per personal laws
1.4.1 Hindus/Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to persons following
the above faiths. A distinction is made between a male and a
female for the purposes of deciding the manner of distribution
of their estates. Heirs are defined as class I, class II, Agnates and
Cognates for a male Hindu while for female they are provided
in S. 15 and S. 16 of the Act.
S. 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that any person
whose marriage is solemnised under the Special Marriage Act,
1954, succession of property of such person shall be regulated
by the provisions of the IS Act. However, the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976, inserted S. 21A in the Special Marriage
Act which provides that where the marriage is solemnised
under the Special Marriage Act of any person who professes
the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain religion, with a person who
professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain religion, S. 21 of the
Special Marriage Act shall not apply. In conclusion, even in case
of the marriage of a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain solemnised
with another Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain under the Special
Marriage Act, such person's succession will be governed by the
Hindu Succession Act, and not by the IS Act.
Male : His property devolves upon his widow, children
(including heirs of a predeceased child through such child) and
mother in equal shares – each taking one share. In case where
none of them are present, the property will pass to his father
if he is alive and failing which to his brother, sister and other
relatives specified in class II.
Female : Her property devolves upon her husband and
children (including children of a predeceased child through such
child) in equal shares — each taking one share. In case where
none of them are present, property will pass to heirs of her
husband and failing them to her mother and father, so however,
a distinction is made in such a case between the properties
received from the parents of the female and those which are
received from the husband and the father-in-law. The latter
property will pass to heirs of her husband while the former will
pass upon the heirs of her father.
1.4.2 Mohammedans – Property of a Mohammedan devolves on
his or her successors as per his or her personal law. However,
estate of persons married under the Special Marriages Act, 1954,
shall devolve as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.
1.4.3 Others – Properties of persons following any faith other
than the Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists and Mohammedans
and Parsis shall devolve as per the provisions of the Indian
Succession Act.
WILL
2.1 What is it ?
2.1.1 S. 2(h) of the IS Act defines a 'Will’ as a legal declaration
of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which
he desires to be carried into effect after his death. Accordingly, a
Will made during the lifetime of a person becomes effective only
on his death. It is for this reason that a Will can be revoked any
time during the life of the person making a Will — a testator.
2.1.2 The procedure governing the Wills in India is laid down
by the IS Act, 1925. The Act provides the procedure for making,
execution and administration of a Will. It applies to all the
persons of any faith (except Mohammedans). The following
sections of the Indian Succession Act are not applicable to Wills
executed by Hindus/Jains/Buddhists and Sikhs.
S. 60 |
Testamentary guardian |
Ss. 65 & 66 |
Execution of privileged Wills |
S. 67 |
Effect of gift to attesting witness |
S. 69 |
Revocation of Will by testator’s marriage |
S. 72 |
Revocation of privileged Will or codicil |
S. 91 |
Power of appointment executed by general bequest |
S. 92 |
Implied gift to objects of power in default of appointment
|
S. 93 |
Bequests to heirs, etc. of particular person without
qualifying terms |
S. 94 |
Bequest to representatives, etc. of particular person |
S. 97 |
Effect of words describing a class added to bequest to
person |
S. 99 |
Construction of terms |
S. 100 |
Words expressing relationship denote only legitimate
relatives or failing such relatives reputed legitimate |
S. 118 |
Bequest to religious or charitable uses |
2.1.3 Section 57 of the IS Act, 1925 provides that sections listed
in Schedule III to the IS Act shall apply –
-
to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jain within the territories which at the said
date were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal
or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras
and Bombay; and
-
to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories
and limits so far as relates to immovable property situate
within those territories or limits; and
-
to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of January, 1927, to
which these provisions are not applied by clauses (a)
and (b);
Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or
codicil.
2.2 Certain terms
-
'Testator’ : a person making a Will.
-
Legatee or beneficiary : a person to whom property is given
under the Will.
-
Legacy : a benefit under the Will.
-
Executor : a person appointed by the testator to execute the
Will as per the provisions of the Will.
-
Attestation : an act of witnessing the execution of the Will.
-
Administrator : a person appointed by a competent authority
to administer the estate when no executor is appointed or
an executor appointed refuses to act as an executor.
-
Probate : a copy of a Will certified under the seal of a Court
of competent jurisdiction with a grant of administration to
the estate.
-
Codicil : a document which modifies or alters the provisions
of the original Will and forms part of it.
-
Letter of Administration : a letter of the court
appointing an administrator to the estate.
-
Succession Certificate : as issued by a Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction in respect of the property of a person who has died
intestate, that is without making a Will and where letter of administration or
probate is not compulsory.
2.3 Who can make it — S. 59 of IS Act provides that every
person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his
property by a Will. Persons who are deaf, dumb, blind and even
an insane person during his sanity can make a Will. However,
any person in an improper state of mind due to intoxication,
illness, etc. cannot make a Will where he does not know what he
is doing. Subsequent incapacity will not invalidate a Will.
2.4 Form — Except in cases of Mohammedans, a Will has to
be in writing and oral dispositions are not recognised. However,
a soldier on a war front can make an oral Will known as a
Privileged Will. No specific form is prescribed under Indian
Succession Act nor any specific language insisted upon. It can
be handwritten or typed. It can be made on a plain paper.
2.5 Execution — A Will should be executed by the testator
by signing or putting his mark on Will in a manner so as to
clarify his intent. The act of execution by the testator should be
witnessed
by at least two persons acting as attesting witnesses,
who must sign or put their marks in the presence of the testator.
It is preferable that the signature is placed at the end of the Will.
Subject to the Will being made by a competent person
in writing,
executed by testator and attested by at least two witnesses no
other legal requisites are provided for in the Indian
Succession
Act.
2.6 Who can be legatees — A testator can give his estate or
part thereof to any person, whether born or unborn (subject to
rule against perpetuity where ultimate legatee is preceded by
a vesting
in a living person), of his choice Estate can be given
under a Will to trusts, organisations, etc. also. An executor
appointed for administration can also be a beneficiary under a
Will. A bequest to a non existent person fails. However, where
it was made in favour of a person who is dead at the time of
the death of the testator, estate will devolve on the legal heirs of
dead person.
2.7 What can be Willed — Properties which are self acquired
can be disposed of under a Will. Properties acquired by inheritance
or gift, etc. and held exclusively can also be subject matter
of Will. It is also possible for a member of a HUF to transfer
his share in the properties of HUF under Will. Tenancy rights
not being transferable should not be made a subject matter of
Will. A Mohammedan under Will can bequeath only 1/3rd of
his property, the remaining 2/3rds part shall devolve on legal
heirs as per the Mohammedan Law. Notwithstanding this rule,
a Mohammedan may bequeath his entire property under a Will
provided his legal heirs otherwise entitled to his estate consent
to such a disposition after his death — their consent before death
is not valid.
2.8 Executors — He is a person entrusted with the duty to
carry out instructions of the testator and has the power to collect, realise and distribute the estate of the deceased. There is no
restrictions on number of executors but their number should be
restricted to four considering the court practice. Unless otherwise
empowered an executor has to invest the realised estate as per
the provisions of Indian Trust Act and is also not entitled to
any remuneration. On refusal of the appointed person to act
as an executor, the competent court is authorised to appoint an
appropriate person.
2.9 Common Clauses — Though no form is prescribed
following clauses are commonly found in a Will.
a) Name, age, address, religion |
b) Revocation of earlier Will |
c) List of relatives |
d) Appointment of executor |
e) Discharge of obligations |
f) Legacies and bequests to persons |
g) Residual estate |
h) Testimonium |
i) Execution |
j) Witness |
k) Safe custody |
|
2.10 Revocation/Alteration —A Will can be revoked at any
time by the testator during his life. A Will as per S. 69 of Indian
Succession Act is revoked on marriage of the testator. This
rule however, does not apply to a Will made by a Hindu or a
Muslim. It is possible to alter a Will by a codicil as explained
above or by correcting the original
Will itself as per S. 71 of the
Indian Succession Act which takes effect only if alterations were
executed in the same manner
as a Will was executed.
2.11 Codicil — A Will can be changed by the testator during
his life time either by making a new Will after revoking an old
Will or by amending the old Will by separate instrument made
with the intention to make such an instrument a part of it. This
new instrument is known as Codicil. S. 2(d) defines it as an
instrument made in relation to a Will and explaining, altering or
adding to its dispositions which shall be deemed to form part of
the Will
2.12 Stamp duty — No stamp duty is payable on execution of
a Will. A Will can be made on a plain paper.
2.13 Registration — Registration of a Will is optional. If desired
it can be registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance’s office
as per the provisions of S. 40 of the Indian Registration Act.
A revocation of a registered Will should be registered. It is
preferable to register Wills made subsequent to a registered Will.
Registration grants protection and secrecy to a Will.
2.14 Deposit — Will can be deposited at option of the testator
with any person of his choice including Sub-Registrar of
Assurances as per the provisions of S. 42 of Indian Registration
Act.
2.15 Probate — A probate is the grant of administration of the
estate by the court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of Will.
A probate provides the conclusive evidence (i) of the execution
of a Will (ii) of the legacies and (iii) of the legal character of
legatees by confirming validity of a Will. It can be granted only
to an executor.
Obtaining a probate is not compulsory in cases of a Hindu and
a Mohammedan unless :—
-
the estate consists of an immovable property situated in
the cities of Mumbai and Chennai and Kolkata.
-
Will is executed in the cities of Mumbai and/or Chennai
and/or Kolkata and deals with an immovable property
wherever located.
A maximum court fee of ₹ 75,000 is payable in the state of Maharashtra for obtaining a probate. View taken that there is
exemption in the said State where the Will is to be administered
by an executrix (a lady executor) is a grey area. No time limit is
prescribed for filing an application for probate. However, delay
is required to be explained where filed beyond a period of three
years of death.
2.16 Letter of Administration — A letter of administration can
be obtained from the court of competent jurisdiction in cases
where the testator had failed to appoint an executor under a
Will or where the executor appointed under a Will refuses to act
or where he has died before or after proving the Will but before
administration of the estate.
2.17 Landmark decisions of the Supreme Court
-
Effect of nomination made under Government Saving
Certificates and Life Insurance Policy. – [Vishin N.
Khanchandani & Anr. v. Vidya Kachmandas Khanchandani &
Anr. (246 ITR 306)]
-
Hindu Succession Act – succession of property devolving
from a female Hindu.– [Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh (252 ITR
324)]
-
Indian Succession Act sec. 213 and sec. 57 – Will – Does
not operate only against Indian Christian – sec. 213 does
not discriminate on basis of religion. – [Clarence Pais v.
Union of India (2001 AIR 1151)]
-
Will provided uneven distribution of assets is valid.
– [S. Sundaresa Pai v. Mrs. Sumangal T. Pai (2001 (8) SCALE
309)]
-
Disposition intra vivos by gift of undivided share or
interest in coparcenery property without consent of
the coparceners : Gift does not partake character of
Testamentary Succession u/s. 30 of Hindu Succession Act,
1956. – [Pavitri Devi & Anr. v. Darbari Singh & Other (1993
4 SCC 392)]
-
Interpretation of Will – Distinction between vested interest
and contingent interest created by Will. – [Usha Subbarao v.
B.N. Vishveswaraiah & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 201]
-
Proving of Will — If evidence adduced is legal and
convincing, satisfies the conscience of the court and there
is nothing unnatural about the transaction, mere conjecture
or unfounded suspicion should not be permitted to sway
the verdict that the will has been proved — Witness being
classmate of the son of the legatee would be interested
in obliging his classmate’s mother so as to benefit her
and go to the extent of falsely deposing was too farfetched
an inference to draw — There is no rule of law or
of evidence which requires a doctor to be kept present
when a Will is executed – [Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai
Aba Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85]
-
Bequest in favour of wife — Absolute interest or limited
right bequeathed — If property is given with a right of
alienation, held, bequest is a conferment of an absolute
estate — Having granted absolute right or interest to a
devisee it is not open to the testator to further bequeathed
the same property in favour of someone else — Therefore,
any subsequent bequest in the same Will in favour of
someone else would be invalid — However, if the Will
clearly indicates that only a limited or restricted right is
being bequeathed to the wife, then a subsequent bequest,
in favour of someone else to take effect after the death
of the wife would be valid. – [Mauleshwar Mani & Ors. v.
Jagdish Prasad & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 468].
-
In view of section 63 and the proviso to sec. 68 of the
Evidence Act, the requirement of law would be fully
satisfied if only one of the attesting witnesses is examined
to prove the Will – (Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai
Vishnu Vekhande (2003 AIR SCW 4018).
-
Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act is discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore,
restriction on an Indian Christian having a nephew or
niece or any nearer relative to bequeath his property
for religious or charitable use is struck down as
unconstitutional. Their Lordships further observed that
the word 'relative’ means legitimate relative and has no
application to any relationship by marriage. Thus a wife
of a person is not his relative but an adopted is. – [John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003 AIR SCW 3536)].
-
Succession Act, 1925, Ss. 63, 70 – S. 68 Proviso – Codicil –
Execution and attestation of – Must be in same manner as
a Will – Since codicil is an instrument made in relation to
a Will.
Attestation of codicil – Registrar of deeds cannot
be 'statutory attesting witness’ to codicil merely by
discharging duties of registration – To be attesting witness
to codicil Registrar should attest signature of testator in
manner contemplated by S. 63(c) of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925.
Codicil dictated by testator of Will in presence of witness
and Registrar – Signed by testator in presence of witness
and Registrar – Both Registrar and witness put their
signatures with a view to attest signature of testator –
However, neither the Registrar nor the witness called in
witness-box to depose attestation – Codicil not proved.
Registration of document as codicil or Will – Does not
dispense with need of proving execution and attestation of
codicil/Will as per Evidence Act – Endorsements made by
Registrar are relevant for registration purposes only. – [Bhagat
Ram and Another v. Suresh and Others (2003 AIR SCW 6518)]
-
Succession Act, 1925, Ss. 220, 227 – Probate or Letters of
Administration – Grant of – Does confer title to property
– But merely enables administration of estate of deceased
– Testamentary Court is only concerned with finding
out whether or not testator executed the testamentary
instrument of his free Will. – [Mrs. Vijay C. Gurshaney &
Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority (2003 AIR SCW 4158)]
-
Hindu Succession Act — Father-in-law of the widow
governed by Mitakshara school died intestate. Sub-section
(2) of section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property
Act, 1937 would apply in respect of joint family property
but thereunder only widow of the said father-in-law and
not widow of his son would be entitled to a claim. Hence
the said widow of the son acquired no right under the Act.
[Ram Vishal (Dead by L. ₹and Others v. Jagan Nath and
Another (2004) 9 SCC 302]
-
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956) —
Adoption of son does not deprive adoptive mother of
power to dispose of her separate property by transfer or
by will. [Ugre Gowdav v. Nagegowda (D) by L. ₹(2004) AIR
SCW 4308].
-
Proving of Will — Onus to establish allegations of undue
influence, fraud or coercion is on the persons making such
allegations. Proof in either case should be one of satisfaction
of a prudent man. [Sridevi and Others v. Jayaraja Shetty and
Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 784]
-
Genuineness of unregistered will — The onus of proving
the will is on the propounder and in the absence of
suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of
the will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the
signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to
discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious
circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain all
legitimate suspicions to the satisfaction of the court before it
accepts the Will as genuine. [Meenakshiammal (dead) through
L. ₹v. Chandrsekaran & Another (2005) 1 SCC 280].
-
Primary evidence sufficient to discharge the onus — Will
being a document has to be proved by primary evidence
except where the court permits a document to be proved
by leading secondary evidence.
In order to assess as to whether the will has been validly
executed and is a genuine document, the propounder has
to show that the will was signed by the testator and that
he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free
will; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing
state of mind and understood the nature and effect of
the dispositions and that the testator had signed it in the
presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence
and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are
established, the onus which rests on the propounder is
discharged. [Daulat Ram and Others v. Sodha and Ors. (2005)
1 SCC 40]
-
Under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the grant
of probate or letters of administration may be revoked
if the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in
substance; or the grant being obtained fraudulently by
making a false suggestion or by suppressing from the
Court something material to the case or if the grant was
obtained by means of untrue allegation or if the grantee
has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to
exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter – VII of Part – IX of the Indian
Succession Act.
The Supreme Court in the case of Crystal Developers v. Asha Lata Ghosh [(2005) 9 SCC 375]
held that reading
sections 211, 227 along with section 263, it is clear that
revocation of the grant shall operate prospectively
and such revocation shall not invalidate the bona fide
intermediate acts performed by the grantee during the pendency of the probate.
-
All that the succession certificate purports to do is
to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the
administration of succession and to protect persons who
deal with the alleged representatives of the deceased
persons. Such a certificate does not give any general
power of administration on the estate of the deceased.
The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the
grantee as the heir of the deceased. A succession certificate
is intended as noted above to protect the debtors, which
means that where a debtor of a deceased person either
voluntarily pays his debt to a person holding a certificate
under the Act, or is compelled by the decree of a court to
pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged. The grant
of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee
as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with
authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to
make payments to him without incurring any risk. [Banarsi
Dass v. Teeku Dutta (Mrs) & Another (2005) 4 SCC 449]
-
The Court empowered to grant letters of administration
ordinarily may not go into the question of title in respect
of property sought to be bequeathed by the testator; the
situation would be different where the authority of the
testator to execute a Will in relation to the subject matter
thereof is in question. [Jayamma v. Maria Bai dead by
proposed Lrs. & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 459]
-
Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act – when a coparcener dies
leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I, his
undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property
would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener, by
survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession.
Anar Devi and Others, Appellants v. Parmeshwari Devi and
Others, Respondents. [2006-(008)-SCC-0656 –SC]
-
Application of the Hindu Succession Act to the situation
of a son being borne prior and subsequent to the
enactment of the said Act. [Sheela Devi & Ors. v. Lal Chand
& Anr. (2006-8)-SCC -581]
-
When the surviving heirs of the deceased had already
partitioned the properties and became owners to the
extent of their respective share, in such circumstances
the property ceases to be joint family property. All the
succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not
as joint tenants but as tenants-in-common. The property
devolves upon them not per strips but per capita with the
right to alienate the share, particularly when the property
has been partitioned and entries made in the revenue
record of rights. Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Others [(2008)
3 SCC 87]
-
When a Hindu female in lieu of her right to maintenance
acquires property, it is in virtue of a pre-existing right.
When her right as a co-owner by virtue of the provisions
of the Act is crystallised, such acquisition would fall
under section 14(1) and not under section 14(2), even if the
instrument, decree, order or award allotting or recognising
the acquisition of the property prescribes a restricted estate
in the property. Therefore, on her death such property
devolves on her heirs. Santosh and Others v. Saraswathibai
and Another [(2008) 1 SCC 465)]
-
The heirs of a female Hindu include the agnates of her
husband. The deceased had left properties in two different
States in India. A probate petition was filed mentioning
one property situated in Bombay and accordingly the
probate was granted by the Bombay High Court. The
Supreme Court held that the non-publication of citation
in another State, in which the second property is situated,
is a ground for revocation of the probate. Basanti Devi v.
Ravi Prakash Ram Prasad Jaiswal [(2008) 1 SCC 267]
-
Where a terminally ill testator makes the will just
two weeks before his death and minor children are
disinherited in favour of the niece and also a number
of suspicious circumstances remain unexplained, the
genuineness of the will is doubtful. Adivekka and Others
v. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (Dead) by LRS and Another
[(2007) 7 SCC 91]
-
Party raising plea of partition has to prove the same since
in law there is presumption in regard to continuance
of joint family. Even separate possession of portion
of property by co-sharers itself would not lead to
presumption of partition. Several other factors are required
to be considered therefore.
Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandgopal Gounder and Another
[(2007) 4 SCC 163]
-
The legally wedded wife is not automatically entitled
to succession certificate to the exclusion of the second
de facto wife and her children, when the deceased had
made nomination in favour of the second wife to receive
terminal benefits of his employment. Though the second
de facto wife was not legally wedded wife, yet her
children were legitimate for the purpose of share in their
father’s employment dues. Therefore, the Court divided
the property between the first wife and four children
through the second wife equally. Vidhyadhari and Others
v. Sukhrana Bai and Others. [(2008) 2 SCC 238]
-
The son inherited 1/3rd share by will on death of his
father in 1975. The son died in 1976. His widow remarried
in 1979. Upon the death of her husband, his share vested
absolutely in the widow by operation of section 14(1) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Such absolute vesting
cannot be subjected to divestment, save and except
by reason of a statute. Sections 4 and 24 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 prevail over the provisions contained
in section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856.
Cherotte Sugathan (Dead) Through LRS. and Others v.
Cherotte Bharathi and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 610]
-
The Testator’s intention to will has to be found out from
the entire will. The will has to be read as a whole and endeavour should be made to give effect to each part of
it. Only when one part cannot be given effect to, having
regard to another part, the principles of purposive
construction or general principles of construction of deeds
may be applied. If a part is invalid, the entire document
need not be invalidated.
Anil Kak v. Sharada Raje [(2008) 7 SCC 695]
-
The Will should be construed by a court placing
itself on the armchair of the testator. The endeavour
of the court should be to give effect to his intention.
The intention of the testator can be culled out not
only upon reading the will in its entirety, but also
the background facts and circumstances of the case.
Shyamal Kanti Guha & Ors. v. Meena Bose [(2008) 8
SCC 115]
-
When a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it
would not be treated as the last testamentary disposition
of the testator. Its proof ceases to be simple lis between the
plaintiff and the defendant. An adversarial proceedings
in such cases becomes a matter of court’s conscience
and propounder of the will has to remove all suspicious
circumstances to satisfy that the will was duly executed by
the testator wherefor cogent and convincing explanation
of suspicious circumstances shrouding the making of will
must be offered. Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh [(2009) 3
SCC 687]
-
S.63 of the Indian Succession Act deals with the execution
of unprivileged wills. It lays down that the testator
shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will or it shall be
signed by some other person in his presence and by his
direction. It further lays that the will shall be attested
by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the
testator signing or affixing his mark to the will or has
seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and
on the direction of the testator and each of the witnesses
shall sign the will in the presence and on the direction
of the testator. Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates
examination of one attesting witness in proof of a will,
whether registered or not.” Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v.
Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors. [2009 (1) Scale 328]
-
Under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, the grant
of probate is not a condition precedent for filing a suit in
order to claim a right as an executor under the will. The
vesting of right is enough for the executor or administrator
to represent the estate in a legal proceeding. FGP Limited
v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor And Another [(2009) 10 SCC 223]
-
In a case where the testator’s mind is feeble and he is
debilitated and there is not sufficient evidence as to the
mental capacity of the testator or where the deposition in
the will is unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of
the circumstances or it appears that the bequest in the will
is not the result of the testator’s free will and mind, the
court may consider that the will in question is encircled
by suspicious circumstances.
When the execution of a will asserted by one party is
denied by the other party, then the burden is on the
party who relies on the will to prove its execution. But
when the execution of the will is not denied then no
burden is cast on the party who relies on a will to prove
its execution. Balathandayutham and Another v. Ezilarasan
[(2010) 5 SCC 770]
-
Statement of the attestator of the will that he was scribe
of the will without admitting that he could remember the
names of the witnesses of the will, in such circumstances
the signature of the scribe could not be taken as a proof
of attestation. The execution of a will can be held to have
been proved only when the statutory requirements for
providing the will are satisfied.
Where execution of a will is shrouded by suspicious
circumstances, it is necessary for the propounder of will to
explain the same. Here registration of will is not by itself
sufficient to remove the suspicious.
The basic aim of section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, is to ensure that inherited property of an issueless
female Hindu dying intestate goes back to the source. It
was enacted to prevent inherited property falling into
the hands of strangers. S.R. Srinivasa and Others v. S.
Padmavathamma [(2010) 5 SCC 274]
-
If a Hindu woman has any existing interest in a
property, prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession
Act, same would blossom into a full-fledged right by
virtue of operation of section 14(1) of the Act. Gaddam
Ramakrishnareddy & Ors. v. Gaddam Rami Reddy and Anr.
[2010) 9 SCC 602]
-
No will is said to be executed unless it is signed by testator
in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Gopal Swaroop v.
Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCALE 470]
-
In the absence of contrary intention in the will, the
description of the properties in the will shall be deemed to
refer to and include the property answering that description
at the death of the testator. Ittianam and Ors. v. Cherichi alias
Padmini [(2010) 7 SCALE 495]
-
Once an absolute right is vested in the first devisee, the
testator cannot change the line of succession of the first
devisee by further bequeathing very same property in favour
of the second set of persons. Sadaram Suryanarayana & Anr. v.
Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr. [(2010) 13 SCC 147]
-
Where sons were given their occupancy rights and
grandsons were made the ultimate beneficiaries, it was
held that only after death of all sons, the grandsons
would be entitled to joint/separate possession. Therefore
the ultimate beneficing would come into picture
only upon the cessation of occupancy rights of the
sons. Dilip D. Chowdhari and Anr. v. Maharashtra Executor and
Trustee and Anr. [(2010) 6 SCC 633]
-
While interpreting an instrument to find out whether it
is of a testamentary character, it will take effect after the
lifetime of the executant or it is an instrument creating a
vested interest in praesenti in favour of a person, the court
has to very carefully examine the document as a whole,
look into the substance thereof, the treatment of the subject
by the settlor/executant, the intention appearing both by
the express language employed in the instrument and by
necessary implication and the prohibition, if any, contained
against revocation thereof. The form or nomenclature of
the instrument is not conclusive and court is required to
look into the substance thereof. P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N.
Ananthachary & Ors. [(2010) 4 SCC 161]
-
Right of a Hindu woman for possession of her husband’s
property cannot arise after her husband’s death. Even
the constructive possession of a female Hindu is sufficient
for the application of section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act. Shri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep. by Manager v.
M. Maheshwaran and Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 68]
-
The distinction between a repugnant provision and a
defeasance provision is sometimes subtle, but the general
principle of law seems to be that where the intention of the
donor is to maintain the absolute estate conferred on the donee but he simply adds some restrictions in derogation
of the incidents of such absolute ownership, such restrictive
clauses would be repugnant to the absolute grant and
therefore void; but where the grant of an absolute estate is
expressly or impliedly made subject to the defeasance on
the happening of a contingency and where the effect of such
defeasance would not be a violation of any rule of law, the
original estate is curtailed and the gift over must be taken
to be valid and operative. Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (d) by
LRS, Appellants v. Godi Jaya Rami Reddy & Anr., Respondents
[(2011)-(5)-SCC-65]
-
The bequest in favour of a female Hindu, if it is a restricted
one, shall remain a restricted one under sub-section (2)
of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act as the same
is governed by the terms of the Will. Jagan Singh (dead)
through LRS, Appellant v. Dhanwanti & Anr., Respondents.
[(2012)-SC2-GJX-0040U-SC]
-
The declaration in section 6 that the daughter of the
coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property, as she would have been a son,
is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from
September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the
ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been
a son. It was further observed that the right accrued to a
daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed
by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment
Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in the
proviso appended to sub-section (1) of section 6. Further, as
per sub-section (5) of section 6, this section shall not apply
to the partition which has been effected before December
20, 2004. Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr., Appellants v.
Chakiri Yanadi & Anr., Respondents. [2011-(9)-SCC -788] dated
12-10-2011
-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that section
14(2) of the Act provides for conversion of life interest
into absolute title on commencement of the Act, 1956,
however, sub-section (2) carves out an exception
to the same as it provides that such right would not
be conferred where a property is acquired by a
Hindu female by way of gift or under a Will or any
other instrument prescribing a restricted estate in that
property.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a Hindu female
has been given only a "life interest", through Will or gift
or any other document referred to in section 14 of the Act,
1956, the said rights would not stand crystallised into the
absolute ownership as interpreting the provisions to the
effect that she would acquire absolute ownership/title into
the property by virtue of the provisions of section 14(1)
of the Act, 1956, the provisions of sections 14(2) and 30 of
the Act, 1956 would become otiose. Shivdev Kaur & Ors.,
Appellants v. R. S. Grewal, Respondent. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5063-
5065 of 2005, decided on March 20, 2013.]
-
A person, who for the time being is the sole surviving
coparcener as in the present case Gulab Singh was, before
the birth of the plaintiff, was entitled to dispose of the
coparcenery property as if it were his separate property.
Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was
competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property
as his property in the manner he liked. Had he done so
before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not
competent to object to the alienation made by his father
before he was born or begotten. But the moment plaintiff
was born, he got a share in the father's property and
became a coparcener. Therefore, after the birth of the
son the father could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity. Hence, the sale deed and the
release deed executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of
entire coparcenery property were illegal, null and void.
However, in respect of the property which would have
fallen in the share of Gulab Singh at the time of execution
of sale-deed and release deed, the parties can work out
their remedies in appropriate proceeding. Rohit Chauhan,
Appellant vs. Surinder Singh & Ors., Respondents [(Civil
Appeal No. 5475 of 2013 (SLP (C) No.22388 of 2011, decided on July 15, 2013.)]
-
Pemmada Prabhakar & Ors., vs. Youngmen's Vysya
Association & Ors.Civil Appeal No. 7835 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24653 of 2012),
decided on August 20, 2014.
“29. It is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is self acquired
property by late Pemmada Venkateswara Rao as he had purchased the said
property vide Sale-Deed Document No. 5174 of 1970 dated 24.11.1970 from his
vendors. It is also an undisputed fact that the said property is intestate
property. He is survived by his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughters. The said
property devolved upon them in view of Section 8 of Chapter 2 of the
Hindu Succession Act as the defendants are class I legal heirs in the suit
schedule property. Undisputedly, the Agreement of Sale-Ex. A1 is executed only
by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The 3rd son, mother and 3 sisters who have got
equal shares in the property have not executed the Agreement of Sale. In view
of the matter, the Agreement of Sale executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who
have no absolute right to property in question cannot confer any right
whatsoever upon the plaintiffs for grant of decree of specific performance of
Agreement of Sale in their favour. The said agreement is not enforceable in
law in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in view of right accrued
in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act. The provisions of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in
categorical term expressly state that a Contract to sell or let any immovable
property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor who
does not have absolute title and right upon the party.”
-
Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. Vs.
Tehmtan Irani & Ors.Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP
(C) No. 22742 of 2005) with Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP
(C) No. 22772 of 2005), decided on April 25, 2014.
As per Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, when a Will of a Parsi
is not probated then no legatee can claim right by means of the same and such
testator is treated to have died interstate. As per Section 52 of the Indian
Succession Act, prior to the amendment of 1991, a Parsi female interstate's
property shall be divided equally amongst her children and the statute does
not distinguish between step-children and children.
-
Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors.Civil Appeal No. 9282 of 2010, 9286 of 2010, 7004 of 2012, decided on
September 8, 2014.
“10. A Will may have certain features and may have been 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 aclosescrutiny before the same can be accepted. It
is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis 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 and not on the
impact of any single feature that may be found in a Will or a singular
circumstance that may appar 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 upon
before us.”
2.18 Section 58 of IS Act provides that the
testamentary succession amongst the Hindus is to be governed by the general
Hindu law modified by what has been provided for in section 57 and Schedule
III of the Indian Succession Act.
Comparative Chart
|
Indian Succession Act
|
Hindu Succession Act
|
To whom
applicable :
|
The IS Act, 1925, is applicable to all Indians other than
Muslims. However certain provisions of the Indian
Succession Act are not applicable to Hindus and apply
only to non-Hindus such as Christians, Parsis and Jews.
Intestate succession to properties of any person other
than Hindu, Mohammedan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain is
governed by Part V (i.e., Intestate Succession) of the
Indian Succession Act. Rules for Parsis are contained in
sections 50 to 56 of the I. S. Act.
|
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to any person
who is a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain and to any other
person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by
religion. Clause (i) of section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that the
said Act does not apply to any property, succession of which is regulated by the
IS Act by reason of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954.
Sec. 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, reads as under:
"Notwithstanding any restrictions contained in the IS
Act, 1925, with respect to its application to members
of certain communities, succession to the property of
any person whose marriage is solemnized under this
Act and to the property of the issue of such marriage
shall be regulated by the provisions of the said Act
and for the purposes of this section that Act shall have
effect as if Chapter III of Part V (Special Rules for Parsi
Intestates) had been omitted therefrom.”
|
Attesting
witness to a
Will :
|
In case of Wills executed by Christians, Jews and
Parsis a person named as executor in the Will can be
an attesting witness. Attestation by a legatee under the
Will is a good attestation. But the bequest in favour
of such a legatee or his spouse becomes void. A gift
to an attesting witness is void though there may be a
sufficient number of attesting witnesses without him,
and the undisposed portion of the devised property will
devolve according to the law of inheritance. (Section 67
of Indian Succession Act)
|
In case of Wills executed by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs
and Jains, the bequest in favour of a legatee is valid
though he has attested the said Will. So a legatee under
the Will of a Hindu will not lose his legacy by attesting
the Will.
|
Probate :
|
In the case of Wills made by Christians and Jews
and by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains [as
provided in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the
Indian Succession Act,] no right as an executor or a
legatee can be established in a Court of Justice unless
Probate is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction
u/s. 213 of the Indian Succession Act. Wills executed
outside the cities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay
in respect of immovable properties situate outside
these cities are not subject to the condition of obtaining
probate before getting advantage of any such Will.
|
No probate is required to establish right as an
executor or a legatee in case of Wills made by Hindus,
Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains.
The exception to the above rule is provided in clauses
(a) and (b) of section 57 of the IS Act which is to the
following effect:
- All Wills and codicils made by Hindus, Buddhists,
Sikhs and Jains within the territories of the
Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and within the local
limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of
the High Courts at Madras and Bombay have to be
probated.
- All Wills and codicils made outside the territories
or limits mentioned in clause (i) above so far as
relates to immovable property situate within those
territories or limits have to be probated.
|
Letter of
Administration:
|
Where a person dies intestate who was governed by
the IS Act, it is obligatory for the executors or legatee to
obtain a Letter of Administration.
|
Where a Hindu dies intestate it is not necessary in
every case to obtain a Letter of administration to the
estate of the deceased to establish a right to any part of
the property of the deceased.
|
Revocation
of Will by
testator’s
marriage :
|
Every Will shall be revoked on the marriage by the maker u/s. 69 of Indian
Succession Act. Revocation results not only from first marriage but any
subsequent marriage also.
The exception to this rule is that a Will made in exercise of a power of
appointment, when the property over which the power of appointment is exercised
would not, in default of such appointment, pass to his or her executor or
administrator or to the person entitled in case of intestacy.
|
This provision does not apply to Hindus, Buddhists,
Sikhs and Jains who are governed by the Hindu
Succession Act.
The statement of objects and reasons of the Hindu
Wills Act, 1870 (now repealed) brings out the reasons
for a marriage amongst the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs
or Jains not having the effect of revoking a Will as the
marriage does not create such a change in the testator’s
condition as to raise a presumption that he would not
adhere to a Will made previously. This presumption is
based upon the principle of monogamous marriage (the
practice of having only one husband or wife at any one
time) in England.
|
Revocation of
Privileged Will
or Codicil :
|
Under section 72 of IS Act, a privileged Will or codicil
may be revoked by the testator by an unprivileged
Will or codicil, or by any act expressing an intention to
revoke it and accompanied by such formalities as would
be sufficient to give validity to a privileged Will or by
the burning, tearing or destroying the same with the
intention of revoking the same.
|
Section 72 of IS Act, 1925 is not applicable to Hindus,
Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains.
|
Construction
of terms/
definitions and
interpretation :
|
Section 97 of IS Act lays down the general principles
of interpretation of Wills. Though this section is not
applicables to Hindus, it can still be equally applied to a Will by a Hindu, if
the clear intention of the testator cannot be gathered from such Will.
It may, however, be noted that the principle of interpretation enacted by this
section, in terms, is applicable to testamentary dispositions and not to gifts
or settlement.
|
Under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 following words are
defined and interpreted u/s. 3 of the Act:
(a) |
agnate |
(b) |
aliyasantana law |
(c) |
cognate |
(d) |
custom and usage |
(e) |
full blood, half blood |
(f) |
heir and uterine blood |
(g) |
intestate |
(h) |
marumakkattayam law |
(i) |
nambudri law |
(j) |
related |
|
Bequest to
religious or
charitable use :
|
Section 118 of IS Act provides that no person having
nephew or niece or any nearer relation, shall have
power to bequeath any property to religious or
charitable uses except the following two conditions are
satisfied:
- a Will by which the testator bequeathed his property to religious or
charitable uses was executed not less than twelve months before the death of
the testator, and
- such Will was deposited within six months from its execution in some place
provided by law for the safe custody.
|
Section 118 of the IS Act is not applicable in case of
Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. In other words,
a Will of a Hindu though not executed before twelve
months of his death and though not deposited within
six months from its execution for the safe custody, is a
valid will which is containing a bequest of his property
for religious or charitable uses.
|
Words
expressing
relationship :
|
Section 100 of the IS Act provides that in absence of
any intimation to the contrary in a Will the word child,
son or daughter would mean legitimate child, son or
daughter. The principles laid down in this section is
that a testator must be presumed to intend his legitimate
relations unless the Will itself contains an intimation to
the contrary.
|
The word son, daughter or child means legitimate as
well as illegitimate child. The illegitimate son of a male
Hindu of any caste is entitled to claim maintenance
from the father and in case of death of the father from
his heirs out of his estate inherited by them so long as
the illegitimate son remains a minor and does not cease
to be a Hindu.
|
Testamentary
guardian :
|
A father, whatever his age may be, may by Will appoint
a guardian or guardians for his child during minority.
This section provides that a father though he may be
a minor may appoint a guardian by Will for his child.
(Section 60 of IS Act, 1925)
|
Under sec. 9 of the Minority and Guardianship Act,
a Hindu father, mother and widow may by Will
appoint a guardian for his minor legitimate as well as
illegitimate children or in respect of minor’s property or
in respect of both, subject to the conditions laid down
in that section.
|
Pemmada Prabhakar & Ors., vs. Youngmen's Vysya Association & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7835 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24653 of 2012), decided on August 20, 2014.
“29. It is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is self acquired property by late Pemmada Venkateswara Rao as he had purchased the said
property vide Sale-Deed Document No. 5174 of 1970 dated 24.11.1970 from his vendors. It is also an undisputed fact that the said property is intestate
property. He is survived by his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughters. The said property devolved upon them in view of Section 8 of Chapter 2 of the Hindu Succession Act as the defendants are class I legal heirs in the suit schedule property. Undisputedly, the Agreement of Sale-Ex. A1
is executed only by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The 3rd son, mother and 3 sisters who have got equal shares in the property have not executed the Agreement of
Sale. In view of the matter, the Agreement of Sale executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have no absolute right to property in question cannot confer any
right whatsoever upon the plaintiffs for grant of decree of specific performance of Agreement of Sale in their favour. The said agreement is not
enforceable in law in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in view of right accrued in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The provisions of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in categorical term expressly state that a Contract to sell
or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor who does not have absolute title and right upon the party.”
Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. Vs.
Tehmtan Irani & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22742 of 2005) with Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22772 of 2005),
decided on April 25, 2014.
As per Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, when a Will of a Parsi is not probated then no legatee can claim right by means of the same and such
testator is treated to have died interstate. As per Section 52 of the Indian Succession Act, prior to the amendment of 1991, a Parsi female interstate's
property shall be divided equally amongst her children and the statute does not distinguish between step-children and children.
Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 9282 of 2010, 9286 of 2010, 7004 of 2012, decided on September 8, 2014.
“10. A Will may have certain features and may have been 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 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 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 upon before us.”
Back to Top
|