Medical Records Are Not the Sole Measure of a Mind: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea in Will Forgery Row

“Onus Lies on Objector to Prove Forgery, Not on Executor to Produce Medical Files —Challenge to Mental Fitness of Deceased Must Be Proved by Evidence, Not Assumptions”, Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, dismissed a revisional application challenging the rejection of a plea to compel production of the medical records of the deceased testatrix in an ongoing probate dispute. In Shri Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Kishan Kumar Khaitan, the objector-petitioner sought the medical documents of his late mother, alleging she lacked the mental and physical capacity to execute her will, which he claimed had been forged.

Rejecting the plea under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 151 CPC, and Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court affirmed that: “Even assuming the medical documents are relevant, the objector had the liberty to summon hospital authorities, which he failed to do.”

The Court thus declined to interfere with the Trial Court’s order, holding that there was no jurisdictional error or procedural illegality.

“Forgery Alleged, But Burden of Proof Rests on the Challenger”

The petitioner had alleged that the will was not executed by his mother, Late Mukhi Devi Khaitan, who had suffered a cardiac arrest in 2004 and a paralytic stroke in 2007, and was allegedly under 24x7 medical supervision thereafter. Claiming that she lacked testamentary capacity, he insisted the will was manufactured by his brother Mahendra Kumar Khaitan, in collusion with the executor Kishan Kumar Khaitan, to deprive him of his rightful share.

However, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of testamentary law:

“The onus to prove the alleged physical and/or mental incapacity of the deceased testator lies upon the objector. It was upon him to establish his allegations... merely alleging incapacity is insufficient without evidence.”

Since the petitioner did not take steps to summon hospital records or medical personnel as witnesses, the Court found no justification to pass an order compelling the executor to produce documents which were stated not to be in his possession.

“Medical Files Not Mandatorily Preserved After Death; Executor Cannot Be Held Liable for Their Absence”

In addressing the concern about the destruction or unavailability of medical records, the Court noted:

“It is a common practice that after death of a family member, the death certificate is preserved, but other treatment records are often destroyed unless required for insurance or legal purposes.”

Thus, unless a legal demand or notice was issued promptly after the death, the custodian of the deceased cannot be faulted for not retaining every medical document.

Justice Chowdhury elaborated:

“Perusal of medical prescriptions of a deceased often invites sadness; families are not bound to retain them indefinitely unless summoned by law.”

“Suspicion Alone Cannot Undo a Will: Proof Must Precede Production”

Citing Murthy v. C. Saradambal (2022) 3 SCC 209 and Sri Devi v. Jayaraja Shetty, AIR 2005 SC 780, the Court emphasized that medical incapacity, if alleged as a ground to impeach a will, must be substantiated with affirmative evidence.

While referring to the Murthy case, the High Court noted:

“Suspicious circumstances must be cleared by cogent evidence. Absence of medical records does not by itself imply that the will is fabricated.”

Similarly, in Sri Devi, the Supreme Court held that the propounder must prove the soundness of mind and due execution, and once that threshold is crossed, the burden shifts to the objector to prove otherwise—through admissible evidence.

“Belated Evidence Motion Filed at Stage of Final Arguments Cannot Be Entertained Without Just Cause”

A key reason for dismissal of the petitioner’s application was procedural delay. The application was filed only after closure of evidence and at the stage of final arguments, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Justice Chowdhury held:

“At the very outset, it is clear that such application was filed at the belated stage... without any special reason.”

“No Interference Warranted Under Article 227”—Discretion of Trial Court Upheld

Finding no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or perversity, the Court declined to interfere under its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It reiterated the principle that such powers are reserved for grave violations and not to reassess evidence or substitute procedural discretion exercised by subordinate courts.

However, it added a significant note of flexibility:

“As the case involves proof of a Will, which is different from proof of other documents or property rights, the parties may, if there is any special circumstance, apply before the Trial Court for adducing evidence.”

Legal Burden Lies With the Challenger, Not the Custodian of Records

In a probate case where allegations of forgery and fraud are advanced, the objector carries the onus to establish lack of testamentary capacity or suspicious circumstances. Merely relying on assumptions about the availability or content of medical records—especially at the final hour—will not suffice.

The revisional application was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s order dated 19th June 2024 was affirmed.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025