1. Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope and Limit
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to cases involving substantial questions of law, and it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
(Paras 15, 24–26)
2. Will – Proof – Unregistered Will – Evidentiary Standard
An unregistered Will can be accepted as valid and enforceable when its execution is proved by examination of attestors and scribe, and when the testator is shown to be in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution.
(Paras 9, 14, 19)
3. Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Propounder
The propounder of a Will must remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution to the satisfaction of the Court; once such burden is discharged through cogent oral and documentary evidence, the Will is entitled to acceptance.
(Paras 14, 19–21)
4. Will – Medical Evidence – Doctor’s Certificate – Evidentiary Value
A medical certificate alleging incoherence of the testator loses evidentiary value when the doctor issuing it does not depose in support of the contents of the certificate and admits lack of medical examination or diagnostic tests.
(Paras 20–21)
5. Competing Wills – Later Will Prevails
Where multiple Wills are proved to have been executed by the testator, the last Will, if proved to be genuine and valid, prevails and renders all prior Wills unenforceable in law.
(Paras 9, 13–14)
6. Adoption – Effect on Succession
A son given in adoption ceases to have rights in the properties of his natural family, and such adoption is a relevant factor while appreciating succession claims under testamentary dispositions.
(Paras 3, 13(a))
7. Concurrent Findings of Fact – Non-Interference
When both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently record findings on execution, validity, and genuineness of a Will after proper appreciation of evidence, such findings cannot be reopened in second appeal.
(Paras 14, 21, 26)
ANALYSIS
The plaintiff sought declaration of title and recovery of possession based on an unregistered Will dated 18.02.1997 (Ex.A1) executed by late Kurakula Venkata Rao. The defendants resisted the claim by relying on a prior registered Will dated 20.02.1995 (Ex.B2) and by alleging that the later Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, particularly on the ground of the testator’s alleged ill-health.
The Trial Court, after exhaustive appreciation of oral evidence (PWs 1 to 6; DWs 1 to 11) and documentary evidence, held that:
-
Ex.A1 was the last Will,
-
it was executed in a sound and disposing state of mind, and
-
earlier Wills stood revoked by implication.
The First Appellate Court independently reassessed the evidence and concurred with these findings, specifically recording that:
-
the plaintiff had taken care of the testator in his last days,
-
the execution of Ex.A1 was proved through attestors and scribe, and
-
the alleged suspicious circumstances were satisfactorily explained.
In Second Appeal, the appellants attempted to re-agitate pure questions of fact, particularly relying on Ex.B3 medical certificate and the evidence of DW-11 (Doctor). The High Court found that:
-
DW-11 did not depose in support of the contents of Ex.B3,
-
no medical tests were conducted,
-
the certificate itself was unsupported by oral testimony, and
-
both Courts below had rightly discarded Ex.B3.
The Court emphasized that no substantial question of law arose, as the findings were purely factual and concurrent. Reliance placed by the appellants on Supreme Court precedent relating to suspicious circumstances was held inapplicable, as no such circumstances survived scrutiny in the present case.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently hold, on proper appreciation of evidence, that an unregistered Will is duly executed by a testator in a sound and disposing state of mind and that all alleged suspicious circumstances have been satisfactorily explained, the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot interfere in the absence of a substantial question of law; re-appreciation of evidence or reassessment of factual findings is impermissible.
