Judgement Briefs

Family Law

Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta

2020 SCC OnLine SC 464

Citation
2020 SCC OnLine SC 464
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2020
Bench
Bench to be verified

Facts

  • Amarjeet Mamik had two daughters, Pamela and Kavita, and one son.
  • Her husband died in 2002.
  • Amarjeet died in 2006.
  • Kavita, the younger daughter, sought probate of a document dated 20 May 2003 as her mother’s last will.
  • Under the alleged will:
  • Kavita received the major portion of the estate;
  • the son received bank deposits but little or no immovable property;
  • Pamela, a widowed daughter, received a conditional residential arrangement.
  • The will was partly handwritten and partly typed.
  • Kavita was:
  • the executor;
  • a major beneficiary;
  • present during the alleged execution;
  • involved in arranging the document.
  • Pamela and the son disputed the will and alleged suspicious circumstances.
  • The Trial Court and High Court refused probate.
  • Kavita appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

  • Whether the will had been proved in accordance with succession and evidence law.
  • Whether the propounder had satisfactorily removed the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

Rule

  • The propounder of a will must prove:
  • the testator’s signature;
  • testamentary capacity;
  • voluntary execution;
  • attestation by two witnesses.
  • Where suspicious circumstances exist, ordinary proof of signature and attestation is insufficient.
  • The propounder bears a heavier burden to satisfy the court’s conscience.
  • Suspicious circumstances may include:
  • unnatural exclusion of natural heirs;
  • major benefit to a person who actively participated in execution;
  • contradictory witness accounts;
  • uncertain or impracticable provisions;
  • unexplained alterations or missing pages.
  • No single circumstance is necessarily decisive; the court must assess their cumulative effect.

Application

  • The Supreme Court did not reject the will merely because the children received unequal shares.
  • A testator may prefer one heir over another.
  • The unequal distribution nevertheless became relevant when combined with other doubtful circumstances.
  • Pamela was a widowed daughter who appeared to require secure residence, yet the alleged will gave her an uncertain conditional arrangement involving future construction.
  • The condition was unclear and potentially incapable of implementation.
  • Kavita received the principal benefit and had taken an active role in the will’s preparation.
  • Her account of:
  • how the document was drafted;
  • who typed it;
  • the sequence of signing;
  • the existence of an alleged third page, was vague and inconsistent.
  • The attesting witnesses did not give a fully consistent account.
  • Questions also arose from payments of ₹25,000 to several persons, including persons connected with the witnesses and Kavita’s family.
  • The document’s physical form—partly handwritten, partly typed and spread over pages—required a convincing explanation that was not supplied.
  • The alleged third-page narrative changed during the litigation.
  • The Court emphasised that the question was not whether any one suspicion could individually be explained.
  • The entire set of circumstances had to produce confidence that the document represented the testatrix’s free and genuine wishes.
  • Kavita failed to present a coherent explanation resolving the cumulative doubts.
  • Since she was both the propounder and principal beneficiary who participated in execution, the burden upon her was particularly strict.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court dismissed Kavita’s appeal.
  • Probate of the alleged will was refused.
  • The Court imposed costs of ₹50,000.
  • The judgment reaffirmed that suspicious circumstances must be removed through clear, credible and consistent evidence.
  • Use this case for: the heightened burden on a major beneficiary who actively participates in preparation of a disputed will.