Will - Physical infirmity or old age of a testator does not inherently negate testamentary capacity

Delhi High Court Upholds Probate of Contested Will Despite Allegations of Infirmity and Fraud High Court Dismisses Daughters' Appeal, Affirms Validity of Will Executed by Late Dr. A.N. Khosla, Citing Lack of Tangible Evidence of Suspicious Circumstances  

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, dismissed the appeal filed by the daughters of the late Dr. A.N. Khosla, affirming the probate of a contested Will dated April 23, 1984. The daughters had challenged the Will on grounds of their father's alleged mental and physical incapacity at the time of execution and claimed the presence of suspicious circumstances, including undue influence by their brother, the primary beneficiary.  

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including testimonies from the petitioner (Dr. Khosla's son) and attesting witnesses, to determine the validity of the Will. Justice Sudha emphasized that the physical infirmity or advanced age of a testator does not inherently negate testamentary capacity, provided that the testator was of sound disposing mind at the time of the Will's execution.  

Central to the court's decision was the burden of proof, which initially rests with the propounder to demonstrate the Will's due execution. Once established, the onus shifts to the objectors to substantiate claims of undue influence or suspicious circumstances. The court found that the daughters failed to produce any tangible evidence to support their claims, such as medical records or testimonies from treating physicians that could corroborate their assertions of the testator's incapacity.  

The objectors had argued that Dr. Khosla, who had suffered multiple paralytic attacks, was not in a mental state to execute a Will. They also pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the unregistered nature of the Will as suspicious. However, the court noted that mere inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not affect the validity of a Will if the foundational elements of execution and attestation are duly proved.  

Furthermore, the court dismissed the plea regarding jurisdiction, affirming that the District Judge had the authority to grant probate for properties within the court's jurisdiction, countering the appellants' argument that probate should encompass properties outside Delhi.  

The judgment also addressed the objectors' reliance on the existence of an earlier Will, which they failed to produce. The court observed that the petitioner's production of a registered Will from 1958, bequeathing assets similarly, underscored a consistent testamentary intention.  

Justice Sudha concluded that the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proving the Will's validity, and the objectors' failure to present material evidence or pursue remedies left their allegations unsubstantiated. The court thus upheld the trial court's order, granting probate of the Will concerning the property at 15 Jangpura-B, New Delhi.  

Bottom Line:

Probate of a Will - The physical infirmity or old age of a testator does not inherently negate testamentary capacity if it is shown that the testator was of sound disposing mind at the time of execution - Suspicious circumstances alleged by objectors must be supported by tangible evidence.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sections 63, 273; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 68

Nirmal Bhatla v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818206