The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a second appeal (SA No. 221 of 2022) in a contentious inheritance dispute, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish the validity of a Will allegedly executed by the deceased property owner, Dashmat Bai. The court held that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, stating that “mere execution of a Will does not establish its validity unless all doubts are eliminated.”
Delivering the judgment, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu reinforced that the burden of proving the genuineness of a Will rests entirely on the propounder, especially when discrepancies or doubts arise regarding its execution. The court found that the plaintiffs had not met the strict legal requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, leading to the dismissal of their claim.
Background of the Case
The dispute centered around an 89.95-acre property in Village Kamrid, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. The appellants, Smt. Asha Bai and Rajendra Kumar, claimed that the property was bequeathed to them through a Will dated November 3, 1995, executed by Dashmat Bai, a childless widow. They sought declaration of title, possession, and partition while also challenging a sale deed dated December 19, 2014, and a revenue order from March 21, 2018, which recognized competing inheritance claims.
The plaintiffs’ claim was initially dismissed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pamgarh (Civil Suit No. 15A/2014), and later upheld by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Janjgir (Civil Appeal No. 23A/2020). The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which has now been dismissed.
Legal Issues and Court’s Findings
The High Court analyzed whether the plaintiffs had successfully proven the validity of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu identified multiple flaws in the plaintiffs’ case, including:
1. Failure to Prove Due Attestation:
– The attesting witness, Rajeshwar Singh (PW-3), failed to confirm that Dashmat Bai affixed her thumb impression in his presence or that he signed the Will in her presence.
– Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act requires two witnesses to see the testator sign and to attest the Will in their presence, which was not convincingly established.
2. Absence of Property Details in the Will:
– The court found it suspicious that the Will did not specifically mention the details of the suit property, raising doubts about its legitimacy.
3. Denial by a Beneficiary:
– Defendant No. 16, Kapil, a named beneficiary in the Will, denied its execution, further casting suspicion.
4. Testatrix Was an Illiterate 98-Year-Old Woman:
– There was no evidence that the Will was read and explained to her before execution.
– The court questioned whether she fully understood its implications.
5. Contradictions in Testimony:
– Plaintiff No. 1, Asha Bai, admitted in cross-examination that their family had moved away from the village in 1987, contradicting the Will’s claim that they had cared for Dashmat Bai for 30 years.
Judicial Precedents and Key Observations
The court referred to Supreme Court rulings, including H. Venktachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443) and Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13192/2024, decided on 02.01.2025), emphasizing that:
– A Will must be proved beyond doubt, especially when suspicious circumstances exist.
– The propounder of a Will must dispel all doubts with cogent evidence before it can be accepted as valid.
– “A Will must be free from all suspicion, and when its validity is challenged, the burden is on the propounder to prove its authenticity beyond doubt.”
Dismissing the appeal in limine, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu ruled that no substantial question of law arose in the case, stating:
“Suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will make its execution doubtful, and the law requires such doubts to be removed with clear and convincing evidence.”
