Genuineness Of Will Can't Be Doubted Merely Because It Was Executed In Favour Of Neighbour: SC [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court, in this case, had upheld a first appellate court order that the law does not prohibit the testator to execute the Will in favour of a person, who is not a member of the family. The High court had observed that the Trial Court merely went by the factum that the plaintiff (wife of the deceased testator) was disinherited.

In his Will, Vishwanath had stated that Arun was looking after them and that there was no other person, who was taking care of them. He had also stated that Arun would be the heir of the testator and his wife after their death. The Trial Court, decreeing a suit filed by the wife of the testator, had declared the Will void and directed Arun to deliver back the possession of the property to her. The Appellate Court reversed these findings and dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld the Appellate Court judgment.

Upholding the judgment of the High Court, the bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna said:

At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court on genuineness of the Will which was under challenge before the learned Trial Court. Merely because the testator executed the Will in favour of the neighbour, the genuineness of the Will cannot be doubted. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

The bench, however, directed Arun to pay Rs.7, 500 per month to the widow of the testator during her life time towards maintenance, out of the income which he would derive out of the agricultural property. The will had also clause to provide maintenance to the wife of the testator.

Click here to Download Order

Read Order