Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court set aside the District Judge’s order rejecting the probate of a Will executed by Dr. Ramchandra Prasad Singh in 1992 and directed that probate be granted in favour of the appellants. The Court held that the Trial Court had erred in insisting on technical proof of death through a formal certificate when ample oral and documentary evidence was available. It reiterated that probate proceedings are a solemn enquiry to satisfy the conscience of the Court about the genuineness of a Will, not adversarial litigation to be dismissed on procedural lapses
.
Facts
The testator, Dr. Ramchandra Prasad Singh, an eminent doctor who moved to London in 1965, purchased property at Gaya in 1972 and constructed a house there. On 22 October 1992, during a visit to India, he executed a Will bequeathing the property to his nephews (the appellants), in the presence of two attesting witnesses. His only daughter, Gayatri Devi, was married and settled in her matrimonial home in Nawada.
The appellants, raised and educated in the testator’s Gaya house, sought probate of the Will after his death in London on 24 November 2014. The testator’s daughter, the sole heir, supported the probate petition and expressly stated she had no objection. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellants failed to prove the testator’s death and that Gayatri Devi had not produced matriculation or intermediate certificates to establish her relationship
.
Issues
- Whether the death of the testator was duly proved despite absence of a formal death certificate.
- Whether the execution and attestation of the Will dated 22 October 1992 were duly established.
- Whether probate can be granted when the sole heir supports the Will and raises no objection.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the Trial Court wrongly rejected credible oral and documentary evidence proving the testator’s death. They relied on depositions of the testator’s relatives and daughter, as well as supporting documents including a sale deed and school certificate of the daughter.
They contended that probate law emphasises the Court’s satisfaction regarding the Will’s genuineness, not strict technicalities. They also argued that since the sole heir, Gayatri Devi, admitted the Will and raised no objection, the probate should have been granted
.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, Gayatri Devi, supported the appellants’ case. She confirmed that she was the daughter of the testator, acknowledged the execution of the Will, and stated she had no objection to its probate. Her son, too, corroborated that the property was validly bequeathed to the appellants
.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 67–68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It reiterated that a Will, like any document, must be proved by showing:
- the testator signed it voluntarily,
- he was in sound mind,
- he understood its contents, and
- it was attested by two witnesses.
The Court relied on the classic precedent H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), which laid down that the proof of a Will requires satisfaction of the prudent mind, not mathematical certainty.
It further invoked Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora (1974) 2 SCC 600, where the Supreme Court held that once execution, attestation, and free will of the testator are established, the burden shifts away from the propounder.
The Court clarified that strict insistence on death certificates is misplaced; under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, oral and circumstantial evidence suffices to prove death. Probate law requires substantial justice over technical deficiencies, focusing on the genuineness of the Will rather than hyper-technical proof.
Precedent Analysis
- H. Venkatachala Iyengar (1959, SC) — Proof of a Will depends on the satisfaction of the prudent mind; mathematical certainty not required.
- Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora (1974, SC) — Burden on the propounder is discharged once due execution and attestation are established.
- Vikas Singh v. Devesh Pratap Singh (2001, Pat HC) — Probate is a solemn enquiry into genuineness, not adversarial litigation.
The Court applied these precedents to hold that the appellants had established execution, attestation, and genuineness of the Will, and the Trial Court erred in rejecting it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that probate proceedings should not be reduced to adversarial contests. The testimony of the daughter, who confirmed the Will and raised no objection, along with credible oral evidence, was sufficient to prove the testator’s death and the genuineness of the Will.
It criticised the Trial Court for ignoring well-settled law and rejecting the probate petition on trivial technicalities. It observed:
“Probate proceedings are not adversarial in the strict sense but a solemn enquiry into the conscience of the Court regarding the genuineness of the Will.”
Thus, since the Will was validly executed, attested, and supported by the sole heir, probate had to be granted.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 20.08.2016, and directed that probate of the Will dated 22.10.1992 be granted in favour of the appellants.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the principle that probate is a solemn jurisdiction aimed at fulfilling the last wishes of the testator. It clarifies that technical lapses, like non-production of a death certificate, cannot override credible oral and documentary evidence. For future probate petitions, this ruling affirms that Courts must focus on the genuineness of the Will and not be bound by hyper-technicalities.
FAQs
Q1. Is a death certificate mandatory for probate?
No. The Court held that oral and circumstantial evidence proving death is sufficient under Section 108 of the Evidence Act.
Q2. What must be proved for a valid probate?
The Will must be shown to be signed by the testator in sound mind, with voluntary intent, and attested by two witnesses.
Q3. Can probate be granted if the sole heir supports the Will?
Yes. If the heir admits the Will and raises no objection, probate can be granted, provided execution and attestation are proved.
