A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol made the observation while confirming orders of the courts below that had upheld the validity of the will of a man who had remarried after a divorce.
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that it is not concerned with allegations of bigamy or a second marriage while deciding on the validity of a will. [Meena Pradhan and ors vs Kamla Pradhan and ors]
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol made the observation while confirming orders of the courts below that had upheld the validity of the will of a man who had remarried after a divorce.
“It is evident that the Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound disposing state of mind … As far as the allegations of second marriage and bigamy are concerned, we refrain from entertaining such submissions as the same is not a relevant factor in deciding the main lis, which is confined to the validity of the Will“, the bench noted.
The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had refused to entertain allegations of forgery and illegality in relation to a will.
The plea challenging the will was moved by the former wife of the will’s maker (testator).
The High Court had upheld an order of a Jabalpur civil court in a succession case, which had issued letters of administration in favour of the testator’s second wife and her kin.
While deciding on the first wife’s appeal against these orders, the Supreme Court noted that there were strict requirements to test the validity of a will to rule out any possible manipulation.
“Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation,” the Court said.
However, the bench found that, in this case, there was no evidence to conclude that the deceased man, was unfit or in an unstable mental condition, or under undue influence or suspicious circumstances, when the will was executed.
The appeal was, thus, dismissed for being ‘bereft of merit.’
