Thursday, 23 April 2020

PROOF OF WILLS ADMITTED BY TESTATOR






INTRODUCTION

I have had the privilege to hear the lecture of Mr.Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate on ‘Execution and Proof of Will’. While concluding the speaker raised an issue as to the applicability of Section 70 of the Evidence Act in the case of Wills but left it to be decided by the Courts, avoiding to express any concrete opinion of his own.

On my reading of the relevant provisions, there appears to be no conflict or contradictions between the provisions of Section 68 and Section 70 of the Evidence as both operate on totally different situations. I would like to place what I have understood on this issue.


WILL AND ITS EXECUTION

On the death of a person, his properties will be inherited by his heirs in accordance with the personal law by which he was governed. However an owner of the property can desire as to whom his property would go after his death. Such owner can declare his desire through a document, known as Will.

A Will being a declaration of desire, it will come into effect only after the death of the declarant and till such time, it will remain only as a piece of paper. Hence there is no stamp duty payable on a Will and it need not be registered and can be written on any blank paper.

The Indian Succession Act 1925, deals with the law relating to Wills. Some of the provisions of this Act are not applicable to Hindus and Mohammedans. However the law relating to the execution of Wills viz., Section 63 which is under consideration herein is applicable to all.

Section 63 of The Indian Succession Act’ 1925
Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1[or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:--


(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.


(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.


(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

Section 63 (a) and (b) speaks about how Will to be signed/ marked by the testator. Section 63 (c) speaks about how the will to be attested.

Section 63(a) provides three options that the Will may either be (i) singed by the testator or (ii) affixed by his mark or (iii) singed by other person but under the direction of the testator and in his presence. In the case of the execution of other documents viz., Gift and Mortgage the other two options are absent, if we read the relevant provision of the Transfer of Property Act.

May be these three options are intended to meet certain urgent situations, where the testator left with not much time to live and not being able to put his signature or mark, owning to physical disability.

Similarly Section 63(b) further takes care as to where such signature/ mark to be placed and such specific stipulation is absent in the provisions relating to Mortgage and Gift in the Transfer of Property Act. Such specific stipulation for the Will is natural as such a Will is to speak from the death of the testator and must not give room for any doubt as to its due execution and the intention of the testator. The absence of such clear stipulation in the Transfer of Property Act appears to be a conscious omission.

The provisions of Section 63(c) speaks about how a Will is to be attested. There must be minimum two attesters and each attester must see the testator signs the Will. If the will is already signed, the testator must inform them personally that it was he who signed the Will. It is not necessary that both the attesters to attest at the same time.

This provision relating to the attestation of the Will is verbatim same as in the definition of attestation in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Section 3 Transfer of Property Act
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,--


"attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary

In fact this provision was inserted in the Transfer of Property Act in the year 1926, when the Indian Succession Act was enacted. Strangely here in this provision one can find all the three options of signing present. However no corresponding amendment is made in the provisions relating to the execution of the Gift Deed and Mortgage Deed

The reference to the Sale and Lease is avoided as Transfer of Property Act does not provide for the attestation of these documents.

Hence the legal formalities for the execution, particularly the attestation of a Will is similar to that of a Gift and Mortgage.


PROOF OF EXECUTION OF WILL UNDER SECTION 68

Section 68 of the Evidence Act
Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. –– If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

Chapter V of the Evidence Act deals with how a document, which includes a will is to be proved in Court. Section 68 in this Chapter makes it mandatory for a Will, Mortgage or Gift to be accepted as evidence only on the deposition of at least one of the attesting witness to the document. The attesting witness has to orally depose before the Court that either he saw testator signed or informed personally by the testator that he signed the Will. If only one of the attesters is examined, he must also state that he saw the other attester attesting the documents in accordance with Section 3 of the Transfer or Property Act or 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Only on such evidence the due execution of these documents will be considered to be proved.

This provision is only in respect of the documents which are required to be attested by the provisions of the concerned Act. Hence, this stipulation is not applicable in the case of a Sale or Lease.

When Indian Succession Act was enacted, a proviso was added to this provision under which is a registered document is not specifically denied, it is not necessary to examine the attester. However Will is specifically excluded from the benefit of this proviso. Hence If a Gift or a Mortgage if not specifically denied in the pleadings to a dispute, it is not necessary to examine the attesting witness but the production of the registered document is enough.

It is provided under Order VIII Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure that any allegation of fact in the Plaint, if not denied specifically it shall be taken to be admitted. The proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act is in consonance with the Civil Procedure Code. It must be kept in mind that what is meant in these two provisions is not an affirmative statement of fact but an omission. Silence on the part of a party is enough to invoke the benefit under this proviso.

If I have to hazard a guess as to why it requires for the will to be excluded, I would say that a Will speaks from the death of a person and that for the said reason it has been put on a higher pedestal from other documents, while determining its genuineness. Though every other document can be set aside on the ground of undue influence, coercion or mistake of fact, still in the case of Wills the law places such burden upon the person who relies on the Will to dispel all suspicions in the mind of the court, whether raised or not. In the case of a person having no legal heirs, it is possible to deceive him during his life time to execute a Will and that the State would not be in a position to deny the Will in the Probate proceedings. Hence the Will is still to be proved with the examination of the attester even if it is not specifically denied.


PROOF OF EXECUTION OF WILL UNDER SECTION 70

Section 68 speaks of a situation when the execution of the document was not specifically denied; Whereas Section 70 speaks of a situation when the execution of the will is admitted. Comparing the situations is like comparing apple with orange.

Section 70 of the Evidence Act
70. Admission of execution by party to attested document. –– The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

This section does not exclude a Will as in the case of Section 68 and is applicable to all attested documents. The term admission is defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act

Section 17 of the Evidence Act
Admission defined.––An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned

The admission as meant in Section 70 is an affirmative statement on a fact. A omission as in the case of Section 68 would not be an admission for the purpose of the Evidence Act. It is a settled principle, if a term is defined in the same Act, it is to be taken as its true meaning wherever it occurs in the same statute unless provided otherwise.

Prior to 1926 in case of all documents, including Gift or Mortgage, the examination of the attester could be dispensed with only if the execution was admitted. On inserting a proviso in Section 68 another circumstance was added that when the document was not specifically denied. The legislature while inserting the proviso had taken care to exclude the Will aware of the existence of Section 70. Hence if a will is admitted by a statement, such admission be a sufficient proof of its execution.

In a case before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, it was submitted that during 2003 an amendment was proposed to Section 70 with ‘70. Admission of Execution by Party to attested Will: The admission by the executant of an attested will of its execution shall, if such admission is made during his lifetime in a pleading or otherwise in the course of the suit of proceedings, be sufficient proof of its execution as against those who dispute the execution, though the Will is one required by law to be attested’ but the same was lapsed.

In the said case the High Court accepted the evidence of the attester as in compliance of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, though it was not stated by the attester that he saw the testator signed the Will. No submission was made on Section 70 except a reference about the amendment and there was no discussion.

In my respectful view that the proposed amendment was superfluous as there was no necessity.

INSTANCES OF ADMISSION OF WILL
Section 68 denotes by the term ‘specifically denied’ that it will arise only in the course of proceedings before the Court. However the admission as stated in Section 70 may happen at any place and time. The speaker Mr.Nagamuthu visualised a classic situation where a person for the reason he has executed a will bequeathing all his properties to his daughter been attacked by his son and that he states the due execution of the Will as the cause of attack in his dying declaration. The statement made before the Judicial Magistrate would be an admission and that could be used as the proof of execution of the will.

In the above referred Karnataka case, the testator during his life time filed a suit against the same Respondents and that in the course of the suit he made an application for the production of the will executed by him to be in the safe custody of the Court and that the same was allowed. The Respondents did not dispute the will. On his death the legatee move the Court for the probate of the Will and the appeal arose from the dismissal of his application. (Amita Vs Arvind RegularFirst Appeal No.100166/2015 High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) dated30/08/19)

Hence the circumstances would arise that that the Will could be admitted by the testator during his life time and that could be covered under Section 70 of the Evidence Act.



In the case of Bhagat Ram Vs Suresh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court without reference to Section 70 accepted a Will without proof as it was admitted by the Plaintiffs. This facts of that case will be useful for the present discussion.

One Mast Ram executed a Will dated 16/05/73 bequeathing his properties to his wife. On the death of her husband, she sold the properties to the Defendants. The sons of Mast Ram, may be step sons to the legatee filed a suit stating that the statement given by the testator and recorded by the Sub registrar while registering the Will on 21/05/73 to be read along with the Will as it denotes that Mast Ram had given the property only during his wife’s life time. Supreme Court rejected the writing as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. However the Defendants did not examine the attester but the Supreme Court accepted the Will with the concluding observation ‘So far as the Will dated 16.5.1973 is concerned. its execution is neither denied nor disputed. The factum of the Will dated 16.5.1973 having been duly executed and attested was an admitted fact. The disputed fact was the execution and attestation of the codicil dated 21.5.1973. The codicil is not proved

The Supreme Court did not put the will into test as it was admitted by the Plaintiffs, though the Plaintiffs would succeed to the property in the absence of the Will. Besides, the scope of admission is also widened to bring the persons claiming under the testator within its net.


AS AGAINST WHOM?

Section 70 states that the admission to be used against the person who made it. The statement admitting a fact would bind on the persons claiming under him. In the case of a dispute between the persons claiming under the Will and by survivorship, both are the legal representatives of the deceased in their own right and hence the question of ‘for’ or ‘against’ does not have any significance as their roles merges into one.

In an application for probate, the person objecting the probate claims his right, representing the estate of the deceased, protecting the same against a person holding a tainted Will and stating that it was not truly reflecting the wish of the testator. Hence as for as the Defendant is concerned it is as if the admission is used against the interest of the testator


CONCLUSION

In the light of the discussion above, it is my respectful and humble view that Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act covers a will within the ambit of the term ‘attested document’ and that a Will if its due execution is proved to be admitted by the testator will be a sufficient proof of its execution in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act’1925

(Suggestions & Corrections welcome)

Sunday, 4 February 2018

ஞாயிறு போற்றுதும் 04/02/18

மாநிலத்தில் மட்டுமல்ல, மத்தியிலும் பாஜக ஆளும் கட்சி. ஆயினும் இடைத்தேர்தல் நடைபெற்ற மூன்று ராஜஸ்தான் மாநில தொகுதிகளிலும் பாஜக தோல்வியடைகிறது என்ற செய்தியில் திராவிட லெமூரிய பெருமிதங்களைச் சற்றுத் தள்ளி வைத்து தமிழர்கள் கவலைப்பட நிறைய இருக்கிறது.

இடைத் தேர்தல்களில் ஆளும்கட்சி அதுவும் எம்ஜிஆர் ஆட்சிக்காலத்திலேயே தோற்றிருக்கிறது என்பதை பலர் மறந்திருக்கலாம்.

ஆனந்த விகடனின் காலப்பெட்டகத்தை தோண்டினால் ஆயிரத்து தொள்ளாயிரத்து இருபதுகளில் தேர்தல் இங்கு அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்ட காலத்திலேயேவோட்போடுவதற்கு பிரஜைகளுக்கு அபேட்சகர்கள் பணம் கொடுத்துக் கொண்டிருந்தார்கள் என்பது தெரியவருகிறது. என்றாலும் இடைத் தேர்தலில் மொத்த தொகுதியையும் முழுக் குத்தகைக்கு எடுப்பதும் சாத்தியம்தான் என்ற சூத்திரத்தை எந்தக் கணித மேதையோனானப்பட்டவருக்கு போட்டுக் கொடுக்க திருமங்கலம் ஃபார்முலாவிலிருந்து நாம் இன்னமும் விடுபட முடியவில்லை.

-oOo-

சட்டமன்ற தேர்தலை விடுங்கள், பார் கவுன்ஸில் தேர்தலுக்கு ஓட்டுக்கு ஒரு பட்டாயா ட்ரிப் அல்லது 30000 ரூபாய் செலவழிக்கிறார்கள் என்று அட்வகேட் ஜெனரல் கூறிய செய்தியில் கொஞ்சம் அதிர்ந்து, ‘புறநானூற்றுப் பரம்பரைகளின் உயர்வு நவிற்சிக்கும் ஒரு அளவில்லையா?’ என்று நினைத்தேன்.

ஆனால் பார் கவுன்ஸிலுக்கு செல்வதற்கு ஆயிரம் முதல் வாக்குகள் தேவைப்படும் என்கிறார்கள். முப்பதாயிரத்தோடு பெருக்கிப் பார்த்தால் சாத்தியப்படும் போலத் தோன்றியதில் அதிர்ச்சியின் வீரியம் கொஞ்சம் குறைந்தது.

-oOo-

கணிதம்தான் எதை எல்லாம் சாத்தியப்படுத்துகிறது. பிரபஞ்சத்தின் வடிவம் முதல் மலர்களின் இதழ்கள் வரை கணித சூத்திரத்திற்குள் அடக்கி விடலாம் என்று யு டியுப்பில் பார்த்த டாக்குமெண்டரியில் சுவராசியமாக விளக்கினார்கள்.

வளைந்து வளைந்து செல்லும் ஒரு நதியின் உண்மையான நீளத்தை அதன் தொடக்கத்துக்கும் முடிவுக்கும் இடையிலான நேர்கோட்டிலான நீளத்தால் வகுத்தால் கிடைக்கும் பொதுவான விடை ஏறக்குறைய 3.1 அதாவது இங்கு எப்படித் தட்டசுவது என்று தெரியாமல் இப்போது நான் தவித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கும்பை’!

வைகை இந்த சூத்திரத்தில் அடங்குமா என்பதில் எனக்கு சந்தேகம் இருக்கிறது. கேட்டால் வைகையை நதி என்று யார் சொன்னது அது ஒரு பெரியநாச்சுரல் ஸ்ட்ராம் வாட்டர் ட்ரயினெஜ்என்கிறான் ஒரு ஆண்டி மதுரையன்.

-oOo-

ஆனால் பார் கவுன்ஸில் தேர்தலில் ஸ்டேக் ஹோல்டர்ஸ் ஒவ்வொருவரும் போட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கும் கணக்குகளை எந்த ஒரு ஐன்ஸ்டைன் சூத்திரத்திற்குள்ளும் அடக்க முடியாது.

அரசியல் கட்சியில் உறுப்பினராக இருப்பவர் தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட முடியாது. சரி. அது என்ன அரசியல் கட்சியை ஆரம்பித்தவர் தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட முடியாது என்று கூடுதலாக ஒன்று?

கட்சியை ஆரம்பித்தவர் அந்தக் கட்சியில் உறுப்பினராகக் கூடவா இருக்க மாட்டார்; என்று கேள்வி கேட்டால், புத்திசாலித்தனத்தைப் புரிந்து கொள்ள இயலாத மட்டு என்று அர்த்தம்.

சம்பந்தப்பட்டவர் உருவாக்கியதை ஒரு கட்சி என்று சொன்னால், கட்சியின் லெட்டர் பேடே நம்பாது.

கட்சியை கலைத்து விட்டு தேர்தலுக்கு மனு போட்டு விடுவாரோ என்ற பயத்தில் மற்ற விதி உருவாகியிருக்கலாம்.

முன்பு தில்லி எய்ம்ஸில் டாக்டர் வேணுகோபால் என்பவர் இயக்குஞராக இருந்தார். தமிழ் தெரிந்திருந்தால் அதில் அவருக்குப் பிடிக்காத ஒரே வார்த்தைஇட ஒதுக்கீடு’. அவரை பதவியை விட்டு நீக்க வேண்டும் என்ற ஆசையில் அமைச்சரான அன்புமணி ராமதாஸ் இயக்குஞர் தகுதிக்கான விதியில் ஒரு மாற்றம் கொண்டு வந்தார். உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் வேணுகோபாலுக்காக அருண் ஜெட்லி வைத்த வாதம், ‘இப்படி தனி ஒரு நபரை மட்டும் பாதிக்கும் விதி முறையற்றதுஎன்பதாகும்.

தனி மனித விதி தள்ளுபடி செய்யப்பட்ட தீர்ப்பை (2008) 5 SCC 1ல் காணலாம்.

-oOo-

காலையில் செய்தித்தாள் படித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கையில்நினைவோ ஒரு பறவைஅமேசான் அலெக்ஸாவிலிருந்து உருகி வழிந்து எழுத்துக்களை மறைத்தது.

சிகப்பு ரோஜாக்கள் கமல்ஹாசன் ஸ்ரீதேவி எல்லாம் பள்ளி நாட்களில் நம்மிடம் உறவாடி பின் எப்போதோ செத்துப் போய் விட்ட உறவினர்களைப் போல தூரத்து நினைவிலிரு்ப்பதாகத் தோன்றுவது எனக்கு மட்டும்தானா என்று பேப்பரை மடித்து வைத்து நினைத்துக் கொண்டிருந்தேன்

மதுரை
04/02/18

PROOF OF WILLS ADMITTED BY TESTATOR

INTRODUCTION I have had the privilege to hear the lecture of Mr.Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate on ‘Execution and Proof of Will’....