Probate courts must examine suspicious circumstances even when caveators have not specifically pleaded them.

Tarapada Chatterjee died in 1990. His daughter, Shanta Chatterjee alias Shanta Ashok Tolat, petitioned for probate of a 1989 Will naming her as sole executrix and beneficiary.

His son, Avijit Chatterjee, contested the Will, alleging that his father died intestate and that the signature was not genuine.

The Single Judge granted probate on 13 February 2020. Avijit’s legal heirs appealed; he had died during the proceedings.

1. Whether the Will was validly executed

2. Whether the Court could consider suspicious circumstances despite the absence of specific pleas in the affidavit supporting the caveat

3. Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will warranted refusal of probate

4. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the order granting probate

Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Will must be proved in accordance with the statutory requirements for execution and attestation.

The propounder must satisfy the Court’s conscience by proving the Will and removing genuine suspicious circumstances, even if the opposing party has not specifically pleaded them; probate proceedings result in a judgment in rem.

Excluding a natural heir, by itself, is not necessarily suspicious, though the circumstances must be assessed cumulatively.

Expert handwriting evidence is opinion evidence and is not ordinarily conclusive or a substitute for substantive evidence; it should be assessed against the other evidence.

The Court held that the absence of specific pleadings did not prevent it from examining whether suspicious circumstances had been dispelled, given the Court’s responsibility in probate proceedings.

It accepted the evidence of attesting witness Sandeep Dave, who testified that he saw the testator sign the Will and the second attesting witness attest it; his evidence remained firm in cross-examination. The competing handwriting opinions did not displace that direct evidence.

The testator’s Parkinson’s disease explained the shaky signature but did not establish incapacity to execute a Will; the evidence did not show that he lacked testamentary capacity at the relevant time.

The Court also found that the evidence disclosed strained relations between the testator and his son, while the daughter had cared for the testator. In those circumstances, the son’s exclusion and the daughter’s receipt of the estate were not suspicious; nor did the delayed disclosure of the Will require rejection once execution was proved.

It dismissed the appeal, upheld the grant of probate, disposed of Interim Application No. 2251 of 2020, and made no order as to costs.