New Delhi, Jul 17 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an order declaring a deceased man’s wife the rightful owner of his land and said the non disclosure of her status or the reason of her disinheritance in the will ought not be examined in isolation but in light of the case’s facts.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi therefore dismissed the challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order passed in November 2009, declaring the wife as the owner.
The bench noted after the man died in November 1991, his nephew filed a suit by propounding a will executed by his uncle in May 1991 bequeathing the land to him.
The trial court declared the May 1991 will as genuine and by its virtue, the nephew of the deceased was the lawful owner of the land.
The high court subsequently overruled the decisions of trial court and the first appellate court, declaring the wife was the rightful owner of the land.
Both claimants, the wife and the nephew of the deceased, died during the pendency of the case with legal representatives substituting them in the top court.
Unlike other documents, the bench said, when a will is propounded, its maker is “no longer in the land of living”.
The court, therefore, pointed out, “This casts a solemn duty on the court to ascertain whether the Will propounded had been duly proved.” The onus lay on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the court’s mind all suspicious circumstances that cast a doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator, it added.
“What boils down from this discussion is that suspicious circumstance, i.e., non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the Will ought not to be examined in insolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case,” the bench said.
It said the nephew’s case was not only to propound the will in his favour, but also to deny the status of the respondent as the deceased’s wife.
Calling the will “cryptic” the bench noted that the deceased bequeathed his properties to his nephew for taking his care.
“However, the will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e., the first respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance,” it added.
The bench further said the trial court “erroneously” observed that the non-performance of last rites of the deceased by his wife hinted at “sour relations” between the couple.
“Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by male Sapinda relations. Given this practice, first respondent (wife) not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter’s lifetime,” it held. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.