Facts
Appellant: C.P Francis (Defendant No.1)
Respondents: C.P Joseph, C.P Raphel, C.P George, C.P Sebastian, Desty Thomas, Clara Jacob, Kavitha Antony, Savitha Sachin
This case involves a property dispute among the children of late C.R. Pius AND Philomina Pius. The Deceased Co- testators C.R Pius died on 24.11.2004 and Philomina died on 27.11.2008, both were the absolute owners of the disputed property. The parties to the litigation are their Children and grandchildren. They jointly owned the two properties, which described as plaint A and B schedules.
Properties in disputes are: 7.875 cents of property in survey no.60/6 of Elamkulam village, kanyanoor taluk, Ernakulam District (Plaint A). second property with 3.233 cents of property in survey no.60/6 of Elamkulam village, kanyanoor taluk, Ernakulam District (Plaint B).
On January 27, 2003 they executed a registered joint will in favour of their son C.P. Francis for the plaint A and B properties. The will bequeathed the properties to him but he was required to pay the specific monetary amount to his six siblings and to deceased siblings’ children within the five years of their parents’ deaths. Out of the will it was noted that one daughter C.P. Sebastian already received the 4 cents of the land through settlement deed.
The appellant was required to pay specific monetary amount to Maria (Rs. 1,00,000), Daughter Thresia (Rs. 50,000), daughter Clara (Rs. 50,000), son Joseph (Rs. 1,00,000), son Raphael (Rs. 1,00,000), and son George (Rs. 1,00,000) within 5 years of the death of both parents.
After the death of both the parents the children (Respondents) filled a suit in the Munsiff Court of Ernakulam. They argued that their parents died intestate and claiming the will void because it was executed under fraud and misrepresentation. They claimed that their father was mentally incapacitated. The trial and the first Appellant court both dismissed the suit by finding that will is valid and there is no fraud. Both the parents were sound mind during the execution of Will.
Issues
- Whether the High court was correct in applying section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
- Whether framing a new sustainable question of law under section 100 (5) of the CPC.
Legal Provisions
- Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 talks about Effect of gift to attesting witness. This section of Indian Succession Act invalidates a bequest made to an attesting witness, or the Husband or Wife of an attesting witness in a will.
- Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code: this section of CPC deals with the second appeals to the High Court and the circumstances where thew court can frame a substantial question of law. The proviso of this section 100 (5) allows the High Court to hear an appeal on additional question of law if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.
- Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the leading Question the Supreme Court discussed the importance of word suggestion in the cross examination of witnesses.
- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The appellants counsel argued that section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 could be challenged as violation of equality rights, equality before law and equal protection of law under this article.
- Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants discretionary power to Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order.
Arguments
Appellants Arguments:
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdictional limits under Section 100 of the CPC by framing a new substantial question of law based on the section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
- The New substantial question of law was framed without any basis in the pleading or evidence and no suggestion. The respondent had challenged the will based on the mental capacity of the testators, not on the identity of the attesting witness.
- The Appellant had proven the will’s valid execution and the sound disposing state of the testators.
- Section 67 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 introduced a completely new case, which the Appellant was not given fair opportunity to consent during the trial. The Supreme Court noted that the “Suggestion” shows the relation between the attesting witness and the Appellant was never put to the witness during cross-examination.
Respondents Arguments:
- The action taken by the High Court was valid exercise of the power under the proviso of section 100 (5) of CPC to form an additional substantial question of law.
- The High Court provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard on the new question under section 100 of CPC.
- The attesting witness was the Appellants wife was not disputed and section 67 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes the bequest to the Appellant void.
- The point raised by the Appellant did not warrant an appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Analysis
The court reiterated the principle governing under Section 10 of the CPC. The power to frame a new substantial question of law is exceptional and it must be exercised only for Strong and Convincing reasons.
The court highlighted that the new question of law introduced a completely different legal challenge which was not part of the original pleading and evidence.
The court affirmed that that the last wish of a Testator as expressed is a duly proven Will. By applying section 67 Without a proper factual foundation in trial record, the High Court effectively ignored a validly executed will and opened up in state succession.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High COURT. It concluded that the high court fell into error by framing and deciding a new substantial question of law without a proper factual basis and recording valid reasons. Court failed to examine section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Supreme Court in the interest of justice and recognized that the Appellant had a moral and legal obligation to full fill the terms of the will.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judgment upheld the validity of the joint will, the principle that testator wishes must be respected if the will is duly executed and proven. While the Court ruled in favour of the Appellant it insured that the testamentary succession would not prejudice the other beneficiaries by the directing the appellant to pay the enhanced compensation within three months.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Manisha Kunwar
For reading more: C.P. Francis vs C.P. Joseph and others
