RABINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. PANCHANAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A will contains the last desire of testator/testatrix. The Courts, therefore, normally act in accordance with the wishes of the person concerned. But then if the Courts were to doubt either genuineness or voluntariness of the maker of the will, they would be loathe to work in accordance with what has been stated in the will. To put it differently, if the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the removal of which is the burden of the propounder, the will would not be probated.

(2.) IN the appeal at hand, we are concerned with a will said to have been made by one Saroj Bala on 30.11.66. This was followed by two codicils dated 2.2.68 and 21.11.69. Saroj Bala passed away on 13.1.71 at the age of 90. On the petitioners, who were named as executors in the will, approaching the Court of Addl. District Judge, Alipore, for obtaining probate of the will, read with the codicils, the same was refused, as the learned trial Judge felt that these were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. On appeal being preferred, the High Court at Calcutta also took the same view. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) AS to the first circumstance, we would observe that this should not raise any suspicion, because the whole idea behind execution of will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. So natural heirs would be debarred in every case of will; of course, it may be that in some case they are fully debarred and in others only partially. As in the present case, the two executors are sons of a half -blood brother of Saroj Bala, whereas the objectors descendants of a full blood sister, the disinheritance of latter could not have been taken as a suspicious circumstance, when some of her descendants are even beneficiaries under the will.