Disputed Will and Property Rights: Supreme Court’s Judgment in Shivakumar vs. Sharanabasappa

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a significant case involving the validity of a disputed will in Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors.. The judgment examined whether a will allegedly executed by the deceased, Sangappa, was genuine and whether his grand-nephews could claim ownership over the properties bequeathed in it. This case delved into key legal principles regarding the execution and authentication of wills, including how courts should handle suspicious circumstances surrounding testamentary documents.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Shivakumar and his two brothers, filed a suit claiming ownership of properties based on a will dated May 20, 1991, allegedly executed by Sangappa, who died in a car accident along with his wife in 1994. The respondents, who were Sangappa’s siblings and nephews, contested the validity of the will, arguing that it was fabricated and riddled with suspicious circumstances. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, but the High Court of Karnataka reversed the decision, holding that the will was not genuine. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues Raised

Was the will executed by Sangappa genuine?
Were there suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s execution?
Did the High Court err in reversing the trial court’s decision?

Arguments by the Appellants (Shivakumar & Ors.)

The appellants contended that:

The will was validly executed, complying with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The testator, Sangappa, was of sound mind at the time of execution and had signed the will in the presence of witnesses.
The discrepancies pointed out by the respondents were minor and should not affect the validity of the will.
The High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s findings without justifiable reasons.

Arguments by the Respondents (Sharanabasappa & Ors.)

The respondents countered that:

The will had several suspicious circumstances, including differences in paper quality, inconsistent signatures, and the use of different pens.
There were blank spaces in the will and incorrect descriptions of properties, raising doubts about its authenticity.
The will lacked the testator’s signatures on certain pages, making it non-compliant with the legal requirements for valid execution.
The testator’s alleged premonition about his death in an accident was highly unnatural.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the material evidence and noted several key discrepancies:

The will was typed on three different sheets of paper with varying colors, which is highly unusual for a legal document.
The signatures of the testator appeared at inconsistent distances from the text, with some leaving excessive blank space.
Three different writing instruments were used for the signatures on different pages, which was not satisfactorily explained.
Two pages of the five-page document were unsigned, violating Section 63(b) of the Indian Succession Act.
There were mismatched dates in the document, casting further doubt on its authenticity.

The Court emphasized that when a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden is on the propounder to dispel doubts and establish its authenticity. The Court observed:

“The very sight of the will does not inspire confidence that it could be genuine.”

It held that the appellants failed to remove the suspicions surrounding the will’s execution, especially regarding the different writing instruments and missing signatures. The Court concluded that the document was likely fabricated using blank papers signed by the testator before his death.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

A will must be executed in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
If a will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances, courts require strong evidence to dispel doubts before accepting it as valid.
Discrepancies such as the use of different pens, unsigned pages, and unexplained blank spaces weaken the authenticity of a will.
The burden of proof is on the propounder to establish that the testator executed the will voluntarily and with a clear understanding of its contents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the will was not a genuine document. This case reinforces the principle that courts must scrutinize testamentary documents carefully, especially when there are strong indications of forgery or fabrication. The judgment serves as a crucial precedent in property and inheritance disputes, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal formalities in will execution.

Petitioner Name: Shivakumar & Ors..
Respondent Name: Sharanabasappa & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Koppal, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 24-04-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shivakumar & Ors. vs Sharanabasappa & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-04-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category