The party relying on misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, etc. has to give the particulars in the complaint for the Court to disregard a Will

In the matter of Premakumari. R. V. O.K. Sivasankara Pillai; decided on 04.01.2024 by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala; RFA No. 197 of 2013

FACTS

This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2012 passed by the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, in O.S.No.27 of 2011. The proceedings were initiated under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.  The defendants resisted the original petition denying the execution of the Will, and thus, the proceedings were converted into a suit invoking Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act.  The dispute in this matter centres around the existence, execution and validity of a Will stated to have been executed by Valliyamma @ O.K.Valliyammal.

The Court in this case was seized with an appeal challenging the genuineness of a Will executed by one Late Valiyammal, who allegedly appointed the 1st plaintiff as the executor of the Will.

The defendants however, claimed that the Will was a product of undue influence and fraud, and that the late testator had not put her signature in the Will. The defendants stated that it was unnatural for the deceased to have divested the properties in the name of the plaintiffs alone, and that she did not have the mental fitness to execute such a Will in the first place.

ISSUE

The Court was thus faced with the twin questions as to whether the existence, execution and validity of the alleged Will had been successfully established by the plaintiffs, and whether they had satisfactorily explained the suspicious circumstances projected by the defendants.

ANALYSIS

The Court held that the contention raised by the appellant while alleging that Will is the product of fraud, undue influence and coercion did not state the kind of fraud and the nature of coercion or undue influence exerted on the testator. As per Rule 4 of Order 6 of CPC, the party relying on misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, etc. has to give the particulars in the complaint and to establish that a high degree of evidence is required.

Fraud, like any other charge of a criminal offence, whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt and a finding as to fraud cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture.  The allegation of fraud, undue influence and coercion must be set forth in full particulars and not vaguely.  When allegations are made in a vague and sweeping manner, the Court cannot act on them for lack of specific pleadings even if the allegations are worded in very assertive language. It is also trite that if the pleadings are vague and not specific, no amount of evidence can salvage the position.

Furthermore, the attesting witnesses had been examined and the Court was satisfied with their testimony corroborating the will.

An individual factor as a suspicious circumstance cannot act as a circumstance to doubt the genuineness of a Will.  The Court shall have to take into account the quality and nature of every fact, the cumulative effect and impact of all of them appreciated on a holistic view is the test to see that the Will indeed signifies the last free wish and desire of the testator and that it is duly executed in accordance with law.  In the present case, the “suspicious” circumstances projected are only normal.  Resultantly, the Court held that the plaintiffs could rule out all the suspicions shrouded upon the execution of the Will.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

(AB-01-2024)