Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court

Lack of Evidence to Conclude Mental Instability or Suspicious Circumstances: Upholds Will Validity: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of a contested Will in a recent judgment. The decision, delivered by Honorable Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, centered on the compliance of statutory requirements and the examination of attesting witnesses.

The central issue revolved around the execution of a Will by the deceased, Bahadur Pradhan, who had married Meena Pradhan and later Kamla Pradhan. The court addressed the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the Will's validity.

In their judgment, the Bench emphasized that "Lack of Evidence to Conclude Mental Instability or Suspicious Circumstances" played a pivotal role in their decision. They noted that the stringent requisites for proving a Will's validity were intended to rule out the possibility of any manipulation and that the Will had been executed out of the testator's free will, in a sound disposing state of mind.

Furthermore, the Bench cited various legal principles and precedents to support their decision, highlighting that the court must consider factors such as the awareness of the testator as to the content and consequences of the Will, as well as the absence of undue influence or  suspicious circumstances.

The judgment also addressed allegations of second marriage and bigamy, asserting that such claims were not relevant to the main issue of the Will's validity.

Supreme Court found that both the lower courts had correctly upheld the validity of the Will, as the relevant provisions had been complied with, and there was no evidence to suggest mental instability or suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the consequential benefits were ordered to be disbursed in accordance with the law.

This judgment underscores the significance of evidence and compliance with statutory requirements in cases involving the validity of Wills, providing clarity on the standards of proof required to establish the authenticity of such documents.

Date of Decision: September 21, 2023

MEENA PRADHAN & ORS. vs KAMLA PRADHAN & ANR.      

Latest Legal News