NDLI: Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Probate of – Non-filing of written statement Will
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Will – Probate of – A Will dated 20.05.2003 was executed by the mother of the contesting parties-testatrix in presence of her younger daughter-appellant alone – Testatrix expired on 21.05.2006 and left behind two daughters and a son – In the said Will, the testatrix gave the entire share in her immovable property to the appellant and made her the major beneficiary under the Will – Appellant filed the petition seeking probate and that was declined both by the Trial Court and the High Court – The Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently found some suspicious circumstances which are of material bearing and which have remained unexplained – Some of such suspicious circumstances founded, inter alia, are: a) non-inclusion of the only son and other elder widowed daughter of the testatrix in the process of execution of the Will and their exclusion from the major part of the estate – b) the manner of writing and execution of Will with technical and legal words – c) there was no clarity about the construction of the property to be carried out by the appellant – d) there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the appellant – On appeal, held: The unexplained unequal distribution of the property is confounded by two major factors related with making of the Will in question: one, the active role played by the appellant in the process and second, the virtual exclusion of the other children of testatrix in the process –The testatrix was living on the ground floor of the estate/ immovable property in question and her elder widowed daughter-respondent no.1 was living at the first floor – There was no reason that in normal and ordinary course, the testatrix would not have included her elder widowed daughter in execution of the Will in question, particularly when her elder widowed daughter was also taking care of her – The provision of construction of the property in the Will is inexecutable and unenforceable and elder widowed daughter is not likely to get anything – There is also no evidence of strained relationship between testatrix and her son – As far as attesting witnesses are concerned, the appellant asserted in her testimony that the testatrix discussed the contents of the Will with the attesting witnesses but both the witnesses consistently maintained that the contents were not discussed with them – Further, there was also dispute regarding number of pages of Will and vacillating stand of the appellant in that regard – As per s.81 of the Succession Act, if there is an ambiguity or deficiency on the face of a Will, no extrinsic evidence as to the intentions of the testator shall be admitted – The appellant failed to clear the suspicious circumstances – Thus, the cumulative effect of these suspicious circumstances is that it cannot be said that the testatrix was aware of and understood the meaning, purport and effect of the contents of the Will in question – The Will in question cannot be probated – The reasons and material findings of the Trial Court and the High Court affirmed. Will – Probate proceedings – Non-filing of written statement – Held: By the very nature and consequence of probate proceeding, filing or non-filing of written statement or objections by any party pales into insignificance and is of no effect – The probate proceeding is not merely inter-partes proceeding but leads to judgment in rem and, therefore, even when no one contests, it does not ipso facto lead to grant of probate – The probate is granted only on proof of Will as also on removal of suspicious circumstances, if there be any, to the final satisfaction of the conscience of the Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 397
Petitioner	Kavita Kanwar
Respondent	Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 6 S.C.R. 357
Judgement Date	2020-05-19
Case Number	3688

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Ors. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Ors.

M. Vishweshwara Shastry Vs. M. Gopalakrishna Bhat and Ors.

Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since Deceased) and After Her Legal Represntative Mr. Marlean Wllkinson Vs. Mrs. Isolyne Saroj Bashini Bose and Others

Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Anr. Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

The Union of India Vs. Ram Kanwar and Others

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kanwar Kumar Mehta and Ors. Etc.

M/s Aditya Hotels (p) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. and Ors.

Sidheswar Ganguly Vs. The State of West Bengal

Harendra H. Mehta and Ors. Vs. Mukesh H. Mehta and Ors.

Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.

Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Ors. Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Ors.

M. Vishweshwara Shastry Vs. M. Gopalakrishna Bhat and Ors.

Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since Deceased) and After Her Legal Represntative Mr. Marlean Wllkinson Vs. Mrs. Isolyne Saroj Bashini Bose and Others

Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Anr. Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

The Union of India Vs. Ram Kanwar and Others

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kanwar Kumar Mehta and Ors. Etc.

M/s Aditya Hotels (p) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. and Ors.

Sidheswar Ganguly Vs. The State of West Bengal

Harendra H. Mehta and Ors. Vs. Mukesh H. Mehta and Ors.

Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.