SHRIMATI SHAKUNTLA, ETC Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants' petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , for the grant of Letters of Administration, with copy of a registered will, Exhibit A-1, dated 13th March, 1965 annexed, in respect of the estate of Dr. Hukam Singh Sodhi (deceased) has been granted by the learned District Judge, Ambala, to the extent of two-third share in a sum of Rs. 8,000/- which was a part of the subject matter of the devise. The petitioners have filed this appeal against the denial of a part of the relief as probate had been asked for in respect of the entire sum of Rs. 8,000/-.

(2.) The deceased had no child. Besides the citations to the general public, notices had also been on the widow, three nephews and a niece of the deceased whose name had been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition. The deceased was described to have no other nearer heirs. The deceased had duly executed a will on 27th December, 1961 which had been attested by two witnesses. This will had then been registered in January, 1962. More than three years after the execution and registration of this will, the deceased had made some alteration therein, scoring off the name of one of the three beneficiaries originally named. Alterations had been initialed by the deceased and had been attested by the two witnesses who had originally attested the document. The genuineness of the will or the alterations made therein by the deceased have not been challenged by any of the parties concerned. No one has come forward to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration as prayed for. The learned District Judge, Ambala has however declined Letters of Administration in respect of one-third share of the sum claimed on the ground that the alterations had not been attested by the witnesses in the same manner as the original will.

(3.) Shri Sodhi, the learned counsel for the appellants, has relied upon the English case relating to the estate of Sarah Blewitt deceased, reported in Law Reports of England, 1880 Probate Division, Volume V. on pages 116-117. In that case also, after the deceased had executed her will and it had been duly attested by witnesses who had attested by witnesses, two interlineations had been made one giving an additional legacy and the other appointing another executor. The testatrix had then, in the presence of the witnesses who had attested the will, appended her initials in the margin of the will opposite the interlineations and the witnesses had also added their initials. The Court found that the statute had been sufficiently complied with. It is true that in the case cited, the interlineations had been made soon after the execution and attestation of the main will but none of the parties interested has taken exception to the fact that a longer interval of about three years had intervened between the making of the original will and the interlineations in the present case. As long as these interlineations have been duly attested by two witnesses and the genuineness of the will or the interlineations is not doubted by any of the parties concerned, the principles of law laid down in Sarah Blewitt's case , may appear to have remained unaffected. Even according to Haisburry's Law of England, Third Edition, Volume 39, Note No. 1326 on page 875, a mark of initials would be sufficient if instead to represent the signatures. In the case relating to the estate of Emerson, 1882 9 LRI 443, the sealing of a will with a seal bearing the testator's initials had been held a sufficient where the testator meant it to represent his signatures. In the case now before me, the evidence examined by the appellants had made it clear that the testator wanted to make certain changes in the will executed by him more than three years earlier. He had made alternations in the original will and had duly initialled these alterations. He intended these initials to serve as his signatures. He had got the alterations attested by the same two witnesses who had attested the original will about three years earlier. The alterations had, however. not been registered with the Sub-Registrar like the original will but there is no law making it obligatory on a person that every change of a will or a revision of the devise should be gone into with the same formalities that had been followed in making the original will. A registered will can be superseded or revoked by a later unregistered will. There is, therefore, no apparent reason why changes or modifications in a registered will cannot be made in the informal manner as long as the changes are duly made and attested. The registration of a document is intended, amongst other things, to facilitate its proof but there can be other equally effective modes of proving the genuineness of a transaction. Where the genuineness of the alterations has been admitted by all the parties concerned, there would be hardly any reason for ignoring these alterations simply because these had not been registered in the same manner as the original will. In any case, the deceased does not appear to have committed the breach of any statutory provisions while making the alterations in the original devise. These alterations have been duly initialled by him in the presence of two witnesses who had attested these alterations. The requirements of law for making a valid testamentary disposition have been complied with.