RAJESH CHAND Vs. DAYAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Beneficiaries under wills are often propounders thereof, (who else will be interested ?). But this circumstance necessitates a caution against the voluntary nature of the will. Such a propounder is expected to dispel the suspicion created by this and such other circumstances in addition to his duty to prove the execution and attestation of the will. What is the law governing the burden of proof placed on beneficiary propounder of the will to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding it ? The origin of the law is simply the rule of commonsense and prudence now embodied in section 114 of the Evidence Act, which is as below :

(2.) The principle of section 16 of the contract Act defining undue influence is also applicable to the burden of proof resting on the beneficiary propounder when he is in a position to dominate the will of the testator and seems to have taken an unfair advantage over the testator of his disposition. But as observed by the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and others, (1959) Supp. (1) SCR 426 (1) at 445,

(3.) The testator was Amar Nath, son of Ram Lal from his first wife. Amar Nath's real sister from the same mother is Dayawati. After the death of his first wife, Ram Lal married again and the second wife is alive. From the second wife Ram Lal has six sons and five daughters. Ram Lal was the Karta of a joint family consisting of his second life, Amar Nath and the sons from the second wife. Apparently because the step-brothers of Amar Nath did not want Amar Nath to continue in the joint family, a partition suit was filed by the step-brothers of Amar Nath. The result was that Amar Nath alone was thrown out of the joint family, while Ram Lal, his second wife and her sons continued to be joint. With the money received at the partition as his share, Amar Nath bought a house No. 5682, Kucha Khan Chand, Nai Sarak, Delhi.