Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that in the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. “The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will”, Court has observed.

The division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam passed the order in a case where the daughter was not included in the separate wills of her father and mother. Court held that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. 

“…cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned”, said the bench.

A couple, Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal had two sons namely V.M. Chandrasekaran and V.M. Sivakumar and a daughter Kalavathy.

The mother, Adhilakshmiammal, died in 1995 bequeathing the properties purchased by her and the properties which she got from her maternal uncle, in favour of her two sons. Her daughter Kalavathy was not given any share, on the ground that she had already been provided sufficiently.

The father, Mannar Reddiar, died in 2000 bequeathing his properties in favour of his two sons and his grandchildren. Daughter Kalavathy was not allotted any property even under this Will also, but the Will contained reasons.

Subsequently in October, 1999, the eldest son, V.M. Chandrasekaran died, leaving behind his wife Swarnalatha and two sons C. Karthikeyan and C. Rishikesan.

These two sons filed the instant appeal before the top court as the probate granted by the District Court in respect of wills by their father’s father and mother, were set aside by the Madras High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The daughter Kalavathy and the surviving son V.M. Sivakumar (of the testators) had filed a suit for partition. Upon coming to know of the same, the present appellants filed a petition in probate O.P No.1 of 2005, under Sections 270, 276 and 289 of the Act for the grant of probate of the Wills which was granted.

In the appeal against this decision, the Madras High Court set aside the impugned judgment on the ground that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of both the Wills. 

However, the top court found that Kalavathy’s daughter was given in marriage to the second son V.M. Sivakumar (Kalavathy’s brother). Noting this, Court said, "It is not difficult for an objective mind to understand the reasons behind the daughter and the second son of the testators coming together."

“Under both the Wills, the properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The first son is now no more.   Admittedly Kalavathy’s daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar the second son of testator. Therefore, if the bequest under the two Wills go, V.M. Sivakumar’s family may eventually receive 2/3rd share of the properties, which is more beneficial to him than getting half share under the Wills,” Court stated.

Court further remarked, "Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked this aspect and started analyzing the Wills with suspicion."

Therefore, finding that the reasons given in the will for not including Kalavathy were more than convincing to show that the exclusion of the daughter has happened in a very natural way, Court allowed the appeal filed by the sons of the eldest son of the late couple. 

Case Title: SWARNALATHA & ORS. vs. KALAVATHY & ORS.