Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment which had invalidated a registered joint will under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and restored testamentary succession as per the will executed by the deceased parents. The Court emphasized:
“The wish of a testator as expressed through a duly proved will is upheld by the Court, but not open up succession contrary to the arrangement made by the testator.”
The Court held that the High Court erred in framing a new substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC at the stage of second appeal without pleadings or evidence. However, while recognizing the validity of the will, the Court directed the appellant-beneficiary to pay enhanced compensation to the excluded heirs, increasing the amounts stipulated in the will tenfold.
Facts
The dispute concerned two properties originally owned by C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who died in 2004 and 2008 respectively. During their lifetime:
- In 1999, Philomina settled 4 cents of land in favour of their son Sebastian.
- In 2003, Pius and Philomina executed a registered joint will in favour of their son Francis (the appellant), bequeathing him the remaining properties (plaint A and B schedules), subject to monetary obligations to other children: ₹1 lakh to Maria, ₹50,000 to Thresia, ₹50,000 to Clara, and ₹1 lakh each to Joseph, Raphael, and George.
After their deaths, five of the siblings filed a partition suit claiming that the parents died intestate. They argued that the will was forged, executed under undue influence, and invalid since attested by Francis’s wife. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the will as genuine. The first appellate court concurred.
On further appeal, the Kerala High Court invalidated the will under Section 67 of the Succession Act, ruling that attestation by the beneficiary’s spouse made the bequest void. This prompted the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in framing and deciding a new substantial question of law at the stage of second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
- Whether Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act applies when a will is attested by the beneficiary’s spouse.
- Whether the registered will dated 27 January 2003 was genuine, validly executed, and binding.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by framing a new question of law without pleadings, issues, or evidence. The additional question regarding Section 67 was never part of the case at trial or in appeal.
He argued that concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts established the will’s due execution, genuineness, and the testamentary capacity of the parents. The High Court’s reliance on Section 67 was misplaced, as the statute was never invoked by the plaintiffs. The appellant also submitted that Section 67 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, though this argument was left open. He emphasized that the courts are bound to give effect to the wishes of the testators once execution of the will is proved.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the High Court was justified in framing the additional question under Section 100(5) CPC, since the issue of attestation went to the root of the will’s validity. They relied on Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, which voids a bequest in favour of an attesting witness or their spouse.
They reiterated that the father, C.R. Pius, was suffering from ailments such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson’s disease, making him incapable of rational decision-making. They contended that the will was created under undue influence by Francis and his wife, who were attesting witnesses. They urged that intestate succession should prevail, entitling each heir to a one-eighth share.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 100 CPC, holding that a High Court may frame additional substantial questions of law only if they arise from pleadings and findings of fact and only with strong reasons. Relying on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) and Mehboob-Ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghani (2019), it emphasized that the jurisdiction is exceptional and cannot be used to introduce entirely new cases.
On Section 67 of the Succession Act, the Court noted that it renders void only those bequests where the beneficiary or their spouse attests the will. However, in this case, the respondents had never pleaded Section 67, nor cross-examined the witnesses on this ground. Introducing it at the second appeal stage created a new case, contrary to principles laid down in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar (2023).
The Court reaffirmed the principle that courts must uphold a duly executed will, citing Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar (1950) and K.S. Palanisami v. Hindu Community (2017).
Precedent Analysis
- Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 – High Court’s power to frame new substantial questions is limited and must be grounded in pleadings. Applied to hold the High Court exceeded jurisdiction.
- Mehboob-Ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghani (2019) 19 SCC 415 – Additional substantial questions are exceptional, not routine. Reinforced limits of Section 100 CPC.
- Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar (2023) 17 SCC 624 – Parties must be put on notice and allowed to address new legal issues. Applied to criticize High Court’s approach.
- Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar (1950) and K.S. Palanisami v. Hindu Community (2017) 13 SCC 15 – Testamentary succession through duly executed wills must be upheld. Applied directly to restore the will.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly introduced Section 67 without pleadings or evidence, thereby altering the entire nature of the case. The plaintiffs’ case was based on allegations of fraud and incapacity, not attestation. The appellant had successfully proved due execution of the will through multiple witnesses, including the scribe and the Sub-Registrar.
The Court clarified that absence of cross-examination or suggestions on Section 67 was fatal, as per the principle of Browne v. Dunn (1893), adopted in Indian law. Since the will remained unchallenged during the parents’ lifetime and was consistent with their earlier settlement deeds, it reflected their free will.
Accordingly, the Court restored the will, held that intestate succession could not apply, and enforced testamentary succession. However, it directed the appellant to fulfil the obligations imposed by the will—namely, payment of sums to siblings—by enhancing them tenfold, considering inflation and fairness.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the validity of the joint will, and set aside the High Court’s order. It directed the appellant to pay enhanced compensation to siblings: ₹10 lakhs each to Joseph, Raphael, and George; ₹5 lakhs each to Desty Thomas and Clara; and ₹10 lakhs collectively to Maria’s heirs. Default would carry 6% annual interest, enforceable as a charge on the property.
The Court reaffirmed its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, stressing that extraordinary interference is justified only to uphold justice and the last wishes of testators.
Implications
This ruling underscores the sanctity of a duly executed will, ensuring that courts cannot invalidate testamentary succession by raising unpleaded grounds in second appeals. It strengthens the principle that functional validity of wills must be preserved unless challenged through proper pleadings and evidence. It also balances equity by enhancing monetary compensation for excluded heirs, thereby upholding both testamentary freedom and fairness among family members.
FAQs
1. Can a will be invalidated under Section 67 if attested by the beneficiary’s spouse?
Yes, but only if such a plea is specifically raised and proven. In this case, the Supreme Court held that raising it belatedly in second appeal was impermissible.
2. What is the scope of High Court’s powers in second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
The High Court can frame new substantial questions of law only in exceptional cases, with strong reasons, and only if they arise from pleadings and findings of fact.
3. What obligations were imposed on the beneficiary under the will?
The appellant-beneficiary had to pay sums of money to siblings. The Supreme Court enhanced these amounts significantly, directing payments up to ₹10 lakhs each, to balance equity.
