Holding

The Will is valid, having been executed by the testator’s free will and satisfying the statutory requirements, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving suspicious circumstances.

Summary

Sankaran Nair executed a registered Will on 7 August 1971 bequeathing his property to his sister Nanikutty Amma's children and their descendants, while leaving a modest sum to his son Madhavan Nair. The son challenged the Will, alleging suspicious circumstances such as the testator's ill health, the registrar being brought to the house, attesting witnesses being beneficiaries, and lack of local witnesses. The trial court cancelled the Will, but the Kerala High Court upheld it, finding it a product of the testator's free will. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies on the propounder. The Court held that the Will satisfied all legal formalities, the testator possessed testamentary capacity, and no undue influence was proved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the validity of the Will.

Issues considered

Whether the Will executed by Sankaran Nair is valid despite alleged suspicious circumstances.
Whether the appellant has discharged the burden of proving lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence.
Whether the presence of beneficiaries as attesting witnesses and registration at the testator's house create suspicion under the Indian Succession Act.
Whether the onus of proving execution of the Will lies on the propounder under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 68
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 63

Subjects

WillTestamentary capacitySuspicious circumstancesBurden of proofUndue influenceIndian Succession ActEvidence ActMarumakkattayamPartitionInheritance

Judgment

-('·
A SAVITHRI AND ORS.
v.
KARTHYAYANI AMMA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
I-
'""(

Succession Act, 1925-s. 63 - Will-Execution of-Allegation of
suspicious circumstances - Execution of Will by testator in favour of
c his sister and her children with whom he had been living and who had
been looking after him and his medical expenses during major portion
ofhis life-Challenge to, by testator's son on the ground ofsuspicious
circumstances-Held: Will was product of.free will-Deprivation ofdue
share by natural heirs would not amount to suspicious circumstance-
D · Moreso, testator left something for his son-Thus, execution of Will
was genuine. >-....
,• '

ss. 63 and 61-Will-Validityof-Onus ofproof, when there exist
suspicious circumstances-Held: Lies on the propounder to explain
E them to the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted as
genuine-Evidence Act, 1872-s. 68.

KN-brother and KK-sister purchased properties. KK had two
children-SN (son) and NN (daughter). Appellants are wife, son and
. daughters of MN, son of SN. Respondent no.1and2 are children and
-
T"

respondent no 3 and 8 are grandchildren ofNN. SN and his wife had 1'-
strained relations and SN was living with his sister and her children who
were looking after him and bearing his medical expenses. Partition took
place between the parties. SN executed a Will dated 07.08.1971 in f

G respect of the properties allotted to him. Value of properties allotted in
favour ofSN was Rs.1000/- which would be in possession ofand enjoyed
by NA and her children and MN was to be paid Rs. 500/-. It was >-~
appellant's case that the Will was surrounded by suspicious
circumstances as the Registrar was brought to the house of the
H 404
SAVITHRI v. KARTHY AYANI AMMA 405

r propounder which proved that the testator was not in good health and A
mental condition at the time of execution of the Will; that attesting
witness to the Will stated that he had not seen the execution of the Will;
I

that other witnesses to the execution of the Will were beneficiaries under
the Will; that even when execution and registration ofthe Will had taken
place at the house, no one from the locality had attested the Will as a B
witness. MN fded suit for partition and for cancellation of Will which
-f
was allowed. Respondent filed appeal challenging the order. High Court
y allowed the same. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1. The legal requirement in terms ofsection 63 ofthe Indian
Succession Act, 1925 and section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is that
a Will like any other document is to be proved in terms ofthe pro\-isions
of the Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. Th~
testamentary capacity of the testator must also be established. D
Execution of the Will by the testator has to be proved. At least one
j_
attesting witness is required to be examined for the purpose of proving ·
the execution of the Will. It is required to be shown that the Will has
been signed by the testator with his free will and that at the relevant
time he was in sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature E
and effect of the disposition. It is also required to be established that
he has signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses who attested
his signature in his presence or in the presence of each other. Only when
there exist suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the applicant
to explain them to the satisfaction ofthe court before it can be accepted F
_y as genuine. [Para 14] [415-A, B, C, D]

2.1. The submission that if both KN and SN were to bequeath their
entire right, title and interest in the properties in favour of the
respondents by way of family arrangement or otherwise, no deed of G
partition was required to be executed, cannot be accepted as thereby
~ they would have lost their interest in the property during their life time.
They evidently intended to have life interest in the property,
bequeathing the same in favour of the respondents. The parties are
governed by Marumakkattayam School of Hindu Law. The sisters in H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A the family have a role to play. The fact that the testator was totally
dependent on his nephew and nieces is beyond any dispute. He lost his
employment in the year 1959. Apart from the properties which were
subject-matter of the Will, he had no other independent source of
income. Being totally dependent on the respondents and having been
B suffering from cancer, he was bound to place implicit faith and confidence
only upon those who had been looking after him. The Will was admittedly
registered. The testator lived for seven years after execution of the Will.
He could change his mind; he did not. The very fact that he did not take
any step for cancellation of the Will is itself a factor which the Court
C may take into consideration for the purpose of upholding the same. The
question as to whether the Registrar was brought to the house of the
propounder or he had gone to the Registrar's office is not a matter which
requires serious consideration. But it may be noticed that the witness
examined on behalf of the respondents, DW-2, categorically stated that
D he had gone to the Registrar's office to get the same registered.
Execution of the will might have taken place at the house of SN, but
according to DW-2 he came to his office even after registration. Even
the other Will was also scribed by him and he was an attesting witness
therein also. [Para 12] [414-A, B, C, D, E, F]
E
2.2. It is not correct to contend that DW-2 could not have been the
attesting witness. He in his deposition categorically stated that he had
seen the Will being read over to the propounder. The witnesses and he
had seen SN putting his signature on the Will. SN had also seen the .
F witnesses putting their signatures. This satisfies the requirements of
the provisions of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and
section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 13] [414-F, G]

Apoline D 'Souza v. John D 'Souza (2007) 7 SCALE 766, relied on.

G 2.3. It was appellant's case that the signature of the testator on
the Will was obtained under undue influence or coercion. The onus to
prove the same was on them. They have failed to do so. If the
propounder proves that the Will was signed by the testator and he at
the relevant time was in sound disposing state of mind and understood
H
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYAYANI AMMA 407

the nature and effect of disposition, the onus stands discharged. For this A
purpose the background fact of the attending circumstances may alsQ
be taken into consideration. [Para 15] [415-D, E]

B. Venkatamuni v. CJ. Ayodhya Ram Singh and Ors., [2006] l
SCALE 148 and Nirarifan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao B
and Ors., (2006) 14SCALE186, referred to.
-t
·y 3.1. The circumstances relevant for determining the existence of
the suspicious circumstances are (i) when a doubt is created in regard
to the condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the Will; .
(ii) when the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the '
c
light ofthe relevant circumstances; (iii) where propounder himself takes
prominent part in the execution ofWill which confers on him substantial
benefit. In the fact situation obtaining herein no such suspicious
circumstance was existing. The court must satisfy its conscience before
D
its genuineness is accepted. Therefore, a rational approach is necessary.
-~
[Paras 17and18] [416-G, H; 417-A, B]
3.2. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a·
factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious
E
circumstances. The son was not meeting his father. He had not been
attending to him. He was not even meeting the expenses for his
treatment from 1959, when he lost his job till his death in 1978. The
testator was living with his sister and her children. Ifin that situation, if
he executed a Will in their favour, no exception thereto can be taken.
F
_y Even then, something was left for the appellant.
[Para 19] [417-B, C, D]
3.3. The conscience of the court must be satisfied. In the instant
case, the High Court has considered the relevant factors. It has been
G
found that the Will was the product of the free will. He had executed
the Will after knowing and understanding the contents thereof.
,,-i
[Para22} [418-E}

Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead) By L.Rs. v.A.J Francis, [2006] 9 SCC H
I

'
)
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 515, distinguished.
' ,·
H Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N Thimmajamma and Ors., AIR
(1959) SC 443, relied on.

Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) though L.Rs. and Ors. v.
B Rulaninibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 537; S. Sundaresa
Pai and Ors. v. Sumangala T Pai (Mrs.) andAnr., (2002] 1SCC630 and
Gurdial Kaur and Ors. v. Kartar Kaur and Ors., (1998] 4 SCC 384,
referred to.

c 2007.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4882 of
From the Judgment and final Order dated 17.8.2004 of the High
Court ofKerala at Emakulam in AS. No. 617of1992(B).
D Nishe Rajen Shonker (for T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the Appellants.
T.L.V. Iyer, S. Prasad, Jay Kishor Singh and Subramoniwn Prasad
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved in this appeal is the validity of a Will dated
07.08.1971 executed by one Sankaran Nair.
3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical table may be noticed
F at the outset :
i-
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYA YANI AMMA [SINHA, J.] 409
·-~r

Krishnan Nair Kochukutty A
[brother] @ Kuttipenamma [sister]
[Died unmarried in 1971] [Dead]
I
I B
-1
, ,

y Sankaran Nair Nanikutty Amma
[Died in 1978] [Dead]
I I
c
MadhaJan Nair

_I
I
I I
D-1 D-2
D
I
...( D-3 to D-8
4. The properties in suit were purchased by Krishanan Nair an<l
Kochukutty @ Kuttipennamma, mother of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 an<l
grandmother of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein. Krishnan Nair was a. E
bachelor. Kochukutty had two children, Sankaran Nair and Nanikutty
Amma. They were govemed by Marumakkattayam School of Law.
Appellants herein are wife, son and daughters of Madhavan Nair son of
Sankaran Nair (Plaintiff). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (Original
Defendant Nos. 1and2) and Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein (Original F
Defendant Nos. 3 to 8) are children and grandchildren respectively of
Nanikutty Amma (sister of Sankaran Nair). Sankaran Nair died in 1978.
Indisputably, the relationship between Sankaran Nair and his wife was'
strained. They were living separately. Sankaran Nair had been living with·
his sister and her children. They were looking after him. He was suffering ' G
from cancer. Respondents herein were bearing all costs for his treatment.
~ Execution of the said will is not in dispute. What is contended is that .
the same was smrnunded by suspicious circumstances which, according
to the appellants, were :
H
).,_
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 1. Registrar was brought to the house of the propounder which
-r---
proves that the testator was not in good health and mental
condition at the time of execution of the Will.
2. DW-2, who was an attesting witness to the Will, in his
deposition stated that he had not seen the execution of the Will.
B He had also no previous acquaintance with the parties.
3. Other witnesses to the execution of the Will were beneficiaries
under the Will. .,...

4. Even when execution and registration of the Will had taken
c place at the house, there was no reason as to why anybody
from the locality had not attested the Will as a witness.
5. In the year 1986, Plaintiff having come to know that
Respondent No. 3 was going to construct a house on the said
D land, filed a suit for partition as also for cancellation of the said
Will. The said suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate
Judge by a judgment and order dated 18.01.1992, holding, >-- .
inter alia, :
" ... The plaintiff had stated that at the time of execution of the will
E the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind and he did
not sign the document after knowing the contents of the same. In
such circumstances, the propounder has to prove that the testator
signed the document in the presence of two attesting witnesses
who sign_ed it in the presence of each other. The important aspect
F is that Sankaran Nair was not having testamentary capacity at the
time of execution of Ext. Al is more or less admitted by the -1~

defendants. In chief examination of PW-4 he has stated that the
Sankaran Nair was not able to execute Ext. A4 and he was not
in such a mental condition to execute such a document. That
G statement in chief examination is not cross-examined ... " "'

It was further observed :
h
'' ... The definite case of the plaintiff is that all the documents were
executed at the instance of Narayanan Nair. On cardinal scrutiny
H of the entire evidence as a whole it can be seen that Narayanan
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYAYANI AMMA [SINHA, J.] 411

Nair is the actual person behind the execution of all the A
documents ... "
The learned Trial Judge also observed:
" .. .It is also not proved whether the testator signed the docume?t
after knowing the contents of the documents. If the relationship of B
the testator with the son was so strange, there was no necessify
for him to reserve Rs.500/- to his son in Ext.A4. If he reserves
Rs. 500/- to his son in Ext. A4 that means he has an affection
towards his son during his life time. Therefore, he might have
intended to give the property to his son after his death. There was c
no necessity for him to bequeath his property to the defendants
who are living along with him and taking the income from the
property. That income is sufficient for his maintenance and there is
no necessity for bequeathing the entire property to the defendants
as Ext. A4 ... " D
6. An appeal preferred thereagainst, however, has been allowed by
reason of the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2004, holding:
" ... The plaintiff who could claim as legal heir of Sankaran Nair
has no right to challenge the partition deed executed by Sankaran E
Nair and others except on establishment of the fact that Sankaran
Nair was not in a position to understand the contents of the partition
deed or that fraud was played on him while effecting partition
which he did not find out during his lite time ... "
The High Court ftnther observed : F
-r
'· .. .In the will it is stated that the property bequeathed under the
will was obtained by his uncle and his mother and there was a
partition between himself, uncle and others and the property
allotted to him in the prutition was being bequeathed under the will. G
In the will Sankarru1 Nair has also directed an amount of Rs. 5001
- to be given to the plaintiff Therefore, there is nothing unnatural
in Sankaran Nair directing the property obtained by him to be
enjoyed by his nephew and niece and their children as they were
looking after him during the major portion of his life time. In such H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A circumstances I do not think that it can be said that mere
disinheritance of the legal heir by itself in the peculiar facts of this
case will amount to a suspicious circumstance ... "
7. Appellants are, thus, before us.

B 8. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants, in support of the appeal, would submit that the High
,_
Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar
as it failed to take into consideration the suspicious circumstances ~
surrounding the Will which have been noticed by the learned Trial Judge.
c It was contended that as the beneficiaries under the said Will took
an active role in the matter of execution thereof, the same by itself would
be sufficient to hold that the execution thereof had not been proved. Strong
reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on H Venkatachala Iyengar v.
B.N Thimmajamma.and Ors., AIR (1959) SC 443.
D
9. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the findings of the ).-.
learned Trial Judge are perverse being beyond the pleadings in the suit.
The learned counsel would contend that the learned Trial Judge failed
E to notice that although two Wills had been executed - one by Krishnan
Nair on 06.08.1971 and another by Sankaran Nair on 07.08.1971, only
the latter one was in question. The learned Counsel urged that although
the partition had taken place on 27.07.1971, as the testators intended to
keep life interest for themselves, the said Wills were executed soon after
F the partition.
"'i-
10. We may notice certain peculiar features of this case. The value
of the joint family properties was assessed at Rs. 4,000/-. The share of
Sankaran Nair being I/4th therein, the value of the properties allotted in
his favour was only Rs. 1,000/-. Out of the said properties, in terms of
G the said Will, a sum of Rs.500/- was to be paid to the plaintiff.

In the said Will it was stated : ~
"My day-to-day affairs well as treatment are being looked after
and is rendered in a sincere manner and according to my wishes
H
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYAYANI AMMA [SINHA, l] 413

by Sankunny Menon & Karthiyani Amma who are (the children A
of my late sister Nani Kutty Amma) and her children.
And I do believe that they will continue to behave in the sam~
was (sic) future also. And I, hereby declare that after my death,
all the assets in my name as well as the property in the B Schedule
which has devolved upon me by the above mentioned deed, shall B
vest in and be taken possession of and enjoyed by my late sister
Nanikutty Aroma's children, Sankunni Menon and Karthyayani anGl
her children and nobody else will have any right whatsoever over
my assets or property. Within an year of my death, a sum of rupees
five hundred shall be given to my son Madhavan and a receipt for C
the same shall be obtained by Karthyayani Arnrna. If the above
mentioned sum is not given to Madhavan within I year and for
that a receipt is not obtained, he is entitled to get an interest 0£
Yz% per hundred rupees, until he receives the money. If the amount,
is not accepted even after knowing about the above amount he D
shall not have any right to claim any interest as stated above. Item
No. 2 of the schedule which I have received as may lawful share,
is hereby charged for the realization of the above said amount. l£
my uncle, Krishnan Nair, expires after my death, then for his funeral.
and other related rituals an amount which may extend upto Rs. 250/ E
-, shall be borne by Karthyayani Amma, This Will shall come into
force only in the event of and on my death. I hereby retain and
have all rights and authority to cancel this will or redraft the same ·
or dispose of my properties as per my wish. I also hereby state
_y' that, in the event of any such act, the same shall be done only, F
through a document made to that end. After deciding and agreeing
as above the witnesses signs below. I have signed in this will only
in Pullapra Village and is being numbered after producing it in the
Trichur Registrar Office."
G
11. We would proceed on the basis that at the time of execution of
the said Will, the testator was unwell. The test, however, is as to whether ·
he possessed mental capacity to understand the contents of the Will and ·
whether the same was free and/or voluntary.
H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 12. Submission of the learned counsel that if both Krishnan Nair and
Sankaran Nair were to bequeath their entire right, title and interest in the
properties in favour of the respondents herein, by way of family
arrangement or otherwise, no deed of partition was required to be
executed, cannot be accepted as thereby they would have lost their interest
B in the property during their life time. They evidently intended to have life
interest in the property, bequeathing the same in favour of the respondents.
It must also be borne in mind that the parties are governed by
Marumakkattayam School of Hindu Law. The sisters in the family have a
role to play. The fact that the testator was totally dependent on his nephew
C and nieces is beyond any dispute. He lost his employment in the year 1959.
Apart from the properties which were subject-matter of the Will, he had
no other independent source of income. Being totally dependent on the
respondents having been 8uffering from cancer, he was bound to place
implicit faith and confidence only upon those who had been looking after
D him. The Will was admittedly registered. The testator lived for seven years
after execution of the Will. He could change his mind; he did not. The
very fact that he did not take any step for cancellation of the Will is itself
a factor which the Court may take into consideration for the purpose of
upholding the same. 'The question as to whether the Registerer was brought
E to the house of the propounder or he had gone to the Registrar's office
is not a matter which requires serious consideration. But we may notice
that the witness examined on behalf of the respondents, Raveendran (DW-
2), categorically stated that he had gone to the Registrar's office to get
the same registered. Execution of the will might have taken place at the
F house ofNanikutty Amma, but according to DW-2 he came to his office
even after registration. Even the other Will was also scribed by him and
he was an attesting witness therein also.
13. It is not correct to contend that DW-2 could not have been the
attesting witness. He in hjs deposition categorically stated that he had seen
G the Will being read over to. the propounder. The witnesses and he had
seen Sankaran Nair putting his signature on the Will. Sankaran Nair had
also seen the witnesses putting their signatures. This satisfies the
requirements of the provisions of the Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [See Apoline
H
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYA YANI AMMA [SINHA, J.] 415
r-· 't
D' Souza v: John D' Souza (2007) 7 SCALE 766]. A
14. The legal requirements in terms of the said provisions are now
well-settled. A Will like any other document is to be proved in terms of
the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act.
The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. The testamentary
Lapacity of the testator must also be established. Execution of the Will J3
~ by the testator has to be proved. At least one attesting witness is required
y· to be examined Jl.1r ;.he purpose of proving the execution of the Will. It is
required to be shown that the Will has been signed by the testator with
his free will and that at the relevant time he was in sound disposing state
of mind and understood the nature and effect of the disposition. It is also c
required to be established that he has signed the Will in the presence Qf
two witnesses who attested his signature in his presence or in the presence
of each other. Only when there exist suspicious circumstances, the onus
would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the
court before it can be accepted as genuine . D
.-'.
1 15. We may, however, notice that according to the appellants
themselves, the signature of the testator on the Will was obtained under
undue influence or coercion. The onus to prove the same was on thedi.
They have failed to do so If the propounder proves that the Will was signed E
by the testator and he at the relevant time was in sound disposing state
of mind and understood the nature and effect of disposition, the onus
stands discharged. For the aforementioned purpose the background fact
of the attending circumstances may also be taken into consideration. [See
B. Venkatamuni v. CJ Ayodhya Ram Singh and Ors., (2006) 11 F
_,, SCALE 148].
16. In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao &
Ors., (2006) 14 SCALE 186, this Court held:
"Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the mode G
and manner in which the execution of an unprivileged Will is to be
/..f proved. Section 68 postulates the mode and manner in which proof
of execution of document is required by law to be attested. It 1n
unequivocal tem1s states that execution of Will must be proved at
least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject
H
~
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

-{-Y
A to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A Will
is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except
where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike
other documents, proof of execution of any other document under
the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the
B Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of
the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an
animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning ho.

thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point .....,.

is receivable.
c The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed
and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder ~
is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and
that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound
disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof.
D If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus
of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the f
~
onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading J

sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of
proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the
E execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and
debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue
influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. [See "
Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Shedage, [2002] 2 SCC 85
and Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors., [2005] 8 SCC
F 784]. Subject to above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ
from that of proving any other document."
..,_
17. Therein, this court also took into consideration the decision of
this Court in H Venkatachala Iyengar (supra), wherein the following
G circumstances were held to be relevant for determination of the existence
of the suspicious circumstances :
"(i) When a doubt is created in regard to the condition of mind of h
the testator despite his signature on the Will;
(ii) When the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair
H
SAVITHRI v. KARTHYA YANI AMMA [SINHA, J.] .
417

in the light of the relevant circumstances; A ..
(iii) Where propounder himself takes prominent part in the
execution of Will which confers on him substantial benefit."
18. We do not find in the fact situation obtaining herein that any such
suspicious circumstance was existing. We are not unmindful of the fact g
that the court must satisfy its conscience before its genuineness is accepted
But what is necessary therefor, is a rational approach.
19. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a factor
which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious ,
circumstances. For the said purpose, as noticed hereinbefore, the C
background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son was
not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was not even
meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he lost his job
till his death in 1978. The testator was living with his sister and her children.
Ifin that situation, if he executed a Will in their favour, no exception thereto P
can be taken. Even then, something was left for the appellant.
20. In Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) though L.Rs. and Ors.
v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors., [2003] 8 SCC 537, this
Court held:
"8. A Will is executed to alter the mode of succession and by the ,
very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or
depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property
to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing
a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all F
_y suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or
mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded
or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything
more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance, especially 1

in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an , G
offspring ...."
[See also S. Sundaresa Pai and Ors. v. Sumangala T Pai (Mrs.) and
Anr., [2002] 1 SCC 630].
21. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on H
;...,
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

-{7
.A Gurdial Kaur and Ors. v. Kartar Kaur and Ors., [1998] 4 SCC 384,
wherein it was held '. ;,
"4. The jaw is well settled that the conscience of the court must
be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and
attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act,
B 1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product
of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed
the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will.
Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the """'
obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel the
c suspicious circumstance. As in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the court of appeal below did not accept the valid execution
of the Will by indicating reasons and coming to a specific finding
that suspicion had not been dispelled to the satisfaction ofthe Court
and such finding of the court of appeal below has also been upheld
D by the High Court by the impugned judgment, we do not find any ~

reason to interfere with such decision. This appeal, therefore, fails )..
and is dismissed without any order as to costs. "
22. There is no dispute in regard to the proposition that the
E conscience of the court must be satisfied. In the instant ~ase, the High
Court has considered the relevant factors. It has been found that the Will
was the product of the free will. He had executed the Will after knowing
and understanding the contents thereof.
23. Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead) By L.Rs. v. A.J Francis,
F [2006] .9 sec 515' whereupon again reliance was placed, one of the I
i-
circumstances was that the names of the two sons of the testator had not
been mentioned therein. The said decision cannot be said to have any
~
application to the instant case.
24. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any legal infirmity t
G
in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order ac; to costs.
} ....
N.J. Appeal dismissed.