A) Abstract / Headnote

This case examined the genuineness of a registered will executed by the testator, Palaniandi Udayar, in favor of his niece (respondent), bypassing his widow (appellant no. 1) and minor daughter (appellant no. 2). The core issue was whether the will was free from suspicious circumstances. The trial court upheld the will’s validity, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The High Court restored the trial court’s ruling, affirming the will’s authenticity. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ challenge, holding that the will reflected the testator’s conscious decision and adequately considered the interests of his legal heirs. It also addressed procedural deficiencies in pleadings under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC, emphasizing the necessity of specific admissions and denials in written statements.

Keywords:

1. Genuineness of the will
2. Suspicious circumstances
3. Testator’s conscious intent
4. Legal heirs
5. Pleadings and CPC compliance

B) Case Details

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Thangam and Another v. Navamani Ammal

ii. Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011

iii. Judgment Date:
March 4, 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.

vi. Author:
Rajesh Bindal, J.

vii. Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 146 : 2024 INSC 164

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VIII Rules 3 and 5)

ix. Judgments Overruled:
None

x. Law Subjects:

• Civil Law
• Law of Succession
• Code of Civil Procedure

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The dispute revolved around the genuineness of a registered will executed by the testator, Palaniandi Udayar, favoring the respondent. The appellants alleged suspicious circumstances, including the testator’s ill health and exclusion of the appellants from the will. The trial court upheld the will, citing sufficient evidence of its genuineness. However, the first appellate court overturned this decision, citing inconsistencies and potential coercion. The High Court reversed the appellate court’s findings, restoring the trial court’s verdict. The Supreme Court reviewed this decision in light of the evidence and procedural compliance.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Testator and Property:
   The testator owned 8 acres of land and three houses. By the will, he bequeathed 3.5 acres of land to the respondent, his niece. The remaining property remained with the appellants, his widow (appellant no. 1) and minor daughter (appellant no. 2).

2. Relationship:
   The respondent was described in the will as being “like a daughter,” having cared for the testator during his illness.

3. Timeline of Litigation:

• The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the will genuine.
• The first appellate court reversed this ruling, citing inconsistencies.
• The High Court restored the trial court’s judgment, affirming the will’s validity.

E) Legal Issues Raised

i. Whether the will was genuine or surrounded by suspicious circumstances?
ii. Whether procedural deficiencies in pleadings under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC affected the outcome?

F) Petitioners’ / Appellants’ Arguments

i. Suspicious Circumstances:
The appellants contended that the testator’s health was frail, rendering him incapable of executing the will. They alleged discrepancies in the testator’s thumb impressions and questioned the scribe and attesting witnesses.

ii. Exclusion of Legal Heirs:
They argued that the will unjustly excluded the testator’s widow and minor daughter, violating principles of natural succession.

iii. Procedural Irregularities in High Court Judgment:
The appellants claimed the High Court improperly reappraised evidence to reverse the first appellate court’s findings, which were not perverse.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

i. Testator’s Intent:
The respondent argued that the will reflected the testator’s conscious decision. She had cared for the testator during his illness, while the appellants were absent.

ii. Adequate Provisions for Legal Heirs:
The remaining property sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the testator’s widow and daughter, satisfying legal requirements.

iii. Procedural Deficiencies by Appellants:
The appellants’ written statement lacked specific admissions and denials, undermining their case.

H) Related Legal Provisions

i. Order VIII Rules 3 and 5, CPC:
Mandates specific admission and denial of allegations in pleadings. General or evasive denials are insufficient. This provision became central to the Court’s reasoning.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The testator’s health, as evidenced by witnesses, did not impede his ability to execute the will.
2. The testator consciously accounted for the interests of his natural heirs by leaving a significant portion of his property to the appellants.
3. Procedural lapses in pleadings, particularly the absence of specific denials, weakened the appellants’ case.

b. Obiter Dicta

The judgment emphasized the importance of specific pleadings under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC. Courts should enforce compliance to avoid “roving inquiries.”

c. Guidelines

1. Courts should scrutinize procedural compliance in pleadings to streamline litigation.
2. A will’s genuineness must be assessed against factual evidence of the testator’s intent, health, and the disposition of property.

J) References

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. (1964) 4 SCR 19
2. Lohia Properties (P) Ltd. v. Atmaram Kumar (1993) 4 SCC 6

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VIII Rules 3 and 5)