
Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Removed, Rules Dharwad Bench
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench ruled that merely relying on a doctor’s certificate to validate the execution of a Will is insufficient. In a second appeal, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar emphasized that the burden of proving the genuineness of a Will lies with the propounder, who must eliminate all suspicious circumstances surrounding its creation.
Case Background
The appeal was filed against a Fast Track Court’s judgment that overturned a Civil Judge’s dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction. The plaintiff, Annapurna’s brother, claimed that she executed a Will in 2000, bequeathing her agricultural lands to him. The defendants, her sisters, contested the validity of the Will, citing suspicious circumstances, including her critical health condition at the time of its alleged execution.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjeevkumar noted:
- Legal Compliance Is Not Enough: While the plaintiff adhered to legal requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, mere compliance does not conclusively prove the execution of a Will.
- Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Addressed: The deceased was critically ill, in ICU on external oxygen and drips, making it improbable that she gave instructions for preparing the Will.
- Lack of Evidence: The absence of the doctor’s testimony about the mental and physical condition of the deceased further weakened the plaintiff’s case.
Significance of Suspicious Circumstances
The court highlighted several suspicious factors:
- The improbability of the deceased carrying property documents to the hospital during her admission.
- The unnatural circumstances under which the Will was allegedly prepared.
“The intention of the testator must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A Will is a solemn document, and suspicious circumstances must be removed,” the court remarked.
Verdict
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the Fast Track Court’s judgment, and upheld the Civil Judge’s decision to dismiss the suit. It reiterated that mere compliance with procedural requirements cannot prove the execution of a Will if doubts remain unresolved.