CHAPTER 2
Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
Allahabad High Court
1. On the basis of a recorded will dated November 8, 2004, the propounder in this instance requested
letters of administration for the testator's estate. According to the terms of this will, the plaintiff,
his nephew whom the testator reared as a son, would inherit the testator's movable and immovable
assets. After divorcing the defendant (his ex-wife and possible legatee) in 1982, the testator has
lived apart from her and their kids ever since. His sister, an attesting witness, produced the Will
after the testator passed away in 2009, stating that the testator had left it to her for safekeeping.
The plaintiff was the only beneficiary of the testator's assets, including both self-acquired and
ancestral shares, according to the will, which was attested by two witnesses. The defendants
challenged the Will, arguing that it was a fake, claiming that they were entitled to the family
property by birthright, and raising doubts about the testator's mental state. After considering the
Will's legality, the court determined that it complied with the Indian Succession Act's
requirements. The testator completed the Will voluntarily and with clear mind, according to the
attesting witness's evidence. The plaintiff was granted letters of administration over the testator's
estate after the court accepted the validity of the Will and found no evidence from the defendants
to refute the plaintiff's claims.
The court also observed that “According to section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, every person
of sound mind not being a minor can dispose of his property by Will.”1
Delhi High Court
2. In this instance, the Testatrix reportedly left him her property in a will that the Propounder sought
probate of. Nevertheless, one of the Relatives objected, questioning the Will's legality. The
Objector contended that the Will was created and forged, and that the Testatrix was not in a sound
mental state at the time it was executed. The court considered questions about the Testatrix's
mental state, the validity of her signature, and whether the Will's execution complied with the law.
The court underlined that the Proposer bears the primary responsibility for proving that the Will
satisfies all legal criteria under the Indian Succession Act, including that the Testatrix was of
sound mind and that the Will was prepared in compliance with legal procedures.
Given the assumption of sanity and the registered character of the instrument, the court
determined that the burden of proving soundness of mind rested with the Objector after taking into
account the evidence, including the pleadings and objections made. As a result, using the facts
presented and the legal presumptions regarding the Testatrix's competence at the time of signing
the Will, the court moved forward with the probate process.
1
Prakash Padia vs. Chandra Kala Padia; MANU/UP/3071/2021
The court also observed that “Section 59 under Chapter II titled "Of Wills and Codicils", of Part
VI titled "Testamentary Succession", of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides that every
person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his property by Will. Explanation 1
thereto provides that a married woman may dispose by Will any property which she could alienate
by her own act during her life. Explanation 2 thereto provides that persons who are deaf or dumb
or blind are not thereby incapacitated from making a Will if they are able to know what they do by
it. Explanation 3 thereto provides that a person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during
an interval in which he is of sound mind. Explanation 4 thereto provides that no person can make
a Will while he is in such a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from
any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing.
Section 63 under Chapter III titled "Of the Execution of Unprivileged Wills" in Part VI supra of
the Indian Succession Act provides that every testator shall execute his Will according to the Rules
provided therein. The said Rules provide that (a) the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the
Will; (b) the signature or mark of the testator shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was
intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; and, (c) the Will shall be attested by two or
more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has
received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark and each of the
witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. Even if a document propounded as a
Will, on the face of it is compliant with the Rules aforesaid qua making and execution of the Will,
the same, when presented in the Court, is required to be proved and which proof is governed by
the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 5 of the said Act requires evidence to be
given of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are
declared to be relevant. A fact in issue in a legal proceeding is a fact pleaded by one party and
disputed by the other. When a propounder of a Will claims a document to be the validly executed
Will of a deceased, if the opposite party disputes the same, the propounder would be required to
prove the same. Such proof, in view of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, would require
the propounder to prove the essentials/requisites of a valid Will i.e. of the testator, at the time of
execution thereof being of sound mind within the meaning of Section 59 of the Act and the Will
having been executed in the manner provided in Section 63 thereof. However the Rules applicable
to pleadings require pleadings to be specific and not general and require the party filing a
reply/written statement to deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit
the truth and further provide the denial to be not evasive but specific and substantive; in absence
thereof such party shall be taken to have admitted the facts not denied specifically. Thus a party
disputing a document claimed to be the Will, is required to deny/dispute specifically, which of the
essential requirements/conditions of making of the Will i.e. whether the testator at the time of
making of the Will was of sound mind or not and whether the document was executed as per the
Rules prescribed in Section 63 or not and if not, which of the said Rules was not complied with.”2
Gujrat High Court
3. In this case, the plaintiff sought partition of certain agricultural lands, claiming they were joint
family properties acquired by the Testator, who was the family Karta. The plaintiff argued that, as
joint family properties, he held an undivided share. The defendant, however, contended that these
lands were the Testator’s self-acquired properties, which he had a right to bequeath solely through
a Will, and asserted that the Testator had executed a Will in favor of the defendant, giving him
exclusive rights to the properties. The trial court examined evidence and found that the properties
were indeed self-acquired by the Testator and upheld the validity of the Will, concluding that the
defendant was the rightful beneficiary. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the
properties were part of a joint family estate and that the Testator lacked the authority to execute
the Will in question. However, the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the
properties as undivided family assets and granting the plaintiff a half share. In a second appeal, the
higher court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies and documentary proof, and reinstated
the trial court's decision, affirming that the properties were self-acquired by the Testator and
validly bequeathed to the defendant through a Will. The suit for partition was ultimately
dismissed.
The court also observed that “In view of the aforesaid provision, even a person who are deaf or
dumb or blind can make a Will if they are able to do what they do by it. Not only that, even a
person who is insane may make a Will during interval if he is of sound mind. Therefore, under
Section 59, only rider for non-capability of making Will is of being minor who is prohibited to
dispose of his property by Will. Except minor, as provided in explanation under Section 59, other
persons, as referred to above, can execute Will.”3
Section 60 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
No relevant judgments found
Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
Karnataka High Court
4. The plaintiffs in this case, who included the deceased's first wife and children, requested a
property division on the grounds that the dead passed away intestate and that the property was
jointly owned by the family. The second wife and her children were among the defendants who
contested this claim, claiming that the assets were self-acquired and passed down to them through
a will purportedly signed by the deceased in 1981.
2
Ashok Baury vs. State; 279 (2021) DLT561, MANU/DE/0467/2021
3
Sonaji Raghala Chaudhari vs. Akha Diwala Chaudhari; 2021(4) CivilCC (GUJRAT), (2022)1GLR536, MANU/DE/0467/2021
The trial court investigated the authenticity of the will and the testator's mental state at the time of
execution. The court discovered a number of questionable circumstances, including the Will's late
presentation nearly 19 years after the testator's death and the defendants' use of the scribe and
attesting witness to support the legality of the Will. The court declared the Will to be void since
the defendants were unable to allay these suspicions. The trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs were
entitled to a portion of the property was upheld when the appeal was denied.
The court also observed that “Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 states that a Will or
any part of a Will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such
importunity which takes away the free agency of the testator is void. The mode of proving a Will
does not ordinarily differ from except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.”4
Section 62 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
No relevant judgments found
Section 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
Punjab & Haryana High Court
5. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for particular performance of a real estate sale
agreement. On January 9, 2004, the testator reportedly consented to sell his land to the appellant
for ₹6 lakhs per acre, with ₹10 lakhs being paid as earnest money. The testator's sons and two
attesting witnesses witnessed this arrangement. Nevertheless, the testator died the next day.
Following his passing, four of his sons, acting as legatees or beneficiaries, signed sale documents
in the appellant's favor; however, Suresh, the defendant, refused, which sparked the court battle.
Given that the testator passed away soon after signing the agreement and was not in good health,
the defendant disputed the validity of the agreement, arguing that it lacked the deceased's free
consent and raised questions about undue influence. On appeal, the appellate court overturned the
trial court's earlier decision in favor of the plaintiff, citing dubious circumstances. The High Court
maintained the decision of the appeal court, pointing out that there was insufficient proof that the
testator had read the agreement and voluntarily approved it. It came to the conclusion that the
appeal lacked merit and was dismissed because there was no privity of contract between the
appellant and the respondent, and the agreement had no legal force on the non-consenting
beneficiary.
The court also observed that “Furthermore, Section 15 which defines 'coercion' and Section 16
which defines 'undue influence' renders all such contracts illegal and unenforceable if they are
impregnated with undue influence or coercion.”5
4
Siddamma vs. Siddamma; 2021: KHC:18206, MANU/KA/2017/2021
5
Kuldeep Singh vs. Suresh, (2022) 205 PLR 611, MANU/PH/1894/2021
Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
Jharkhand High Court
6. In this case, the respondent, who served as the proponent of a registered will that the testator had
executed, was granted letters of administration, which the appellant contested. Runia was named
as the only beneficiary or legatee in this will, which was dated May 17, 2013. Runia requested
letters of administration after the testator passed away in 2016, and the lower court initially
granted them. Phulai and other family members challenged this award, claiming the testator was
not of sound mind due to his advanced age and alleged injuries, as well as undue influence and
fraud. With the help of one attesting witness who attested to the validity of the will, the lower
court determined that the testator was in good mental health at the time of its execution. The court
rejected the appellant’s claims that the Will was misrepresented as a partition instrument and that
the testator was coerced by Runia's authority over him because of their inconsistent statements and
lack of hard proof. To further emphasize the testator's intention, the Will also contained provisions
for the care of another daughter. The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, concluding
that no sufficient evidence of undue influence or fraud was presented, and affirmed the validity of
the Will, dismissing the appeal.
The court also observed that “Section 16 of the Contract Act provides that, "a contract is said to
be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that
one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain
an unfair advantage over the other."6
Karnataka High Court
7. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit contested the testator's 1999 split, claiming it was unfair and left out
some family members, most notably the daughters. They contended that an unequal distribution
resulted from the testator's overwhelming power and that he had broken pledges to divide the
estate evenly among all beneficiaries when he passed away They claimed that daughters had
already got their shares at marriage and that the testator's property rights permitted him to give
specific assets to preferred legatees. The court determined that the partition was legitimate and
free from fraud or undue influence after examining the evidence, including the testimonies of
attesting witnesses. The lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The defendants argued that
the division was legally obligatory, agreed upon, and executed.
The court also observed that “Further, Section 16(1) of the Contract Act, is also considered and it
is held that unless there is a pleading and proof, undue influence cannot be presumed.”7
Kerala High Court
6
Phulai Devi vs. Runia Devi MANU/JH/0835/2021
7
H.G. Maheshwarappa and Ors. vs. H.G. Basvalingappa; 2021: KHC:22792-DB MANU/KA/2822/2021
8. In this instance, the proponent attempted to divide the testatrix's property, which she had given to
her daughter (beneficiary). Later, under dubious circumstances, the recipient signed a gift deed
giving her spouse, the propounder, half of this property. The proponent then filed for partition in
order to assert his co-ownership portion, citing irreconcilable disagreements. The beneficiaries
argued that there was no true acceptance or transfer of possession and that the gift deed was
obtained through undue influence and pressure. The court questioned the legitimacy of the transfer
because of evidence that the beneficiary had been mistreated and had been influenced by the
propounder. Furthermore, there was no proof of formal acceptance or delivery of possession of the
donated share from the proponent. The court found the gift deed invalid, concluding it was
influenced by coercion and that there was no legally recognized acceptance or transfer. As a result,
the court dismissed the propounder's claim for partition.
The court also observed that “Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act deals with "undue influence".
The concept behind S. 16 is that, when a person who is in a position to dominate the will of
another, by reason of his authority or fiduciary relation over the other, or on account of mental or
bodily distress, uses that position to create an unfair advantage over the other in a contract, then,
such a contract will not be one regarded as having been entered into with free consent.”8
Punjab & Haryana High Court
9. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for particular performance of a real estate sale
agreement. On January 9, 2004, the testator reportedly consented to sell his land to the appellant
for ₹6 lakhs per acre, with ₹10 lakhs being paid as earnest money. The testator's sons and two
attesting witnesses witnessed this arrangement. Nevertheless, the testator died the next day.
Following his passing, four of his sons, acting as legatees or beneficiaries, signed sale documents
in the appellant's favor; however, Suresh, the defendant, refused, which sparked the court battle.
Given that the testator passed away soon after signing the agreement and was not in good health,
the defendant disputed the validity of the agreement, arguing that it lacked the deceased's free
consent and raised questions about undue influence. On appeal, the appellate court overturned the
trial court's earlier decision in favor of the plaintiff, citing dubious circumstances. The High Court
maintained the decision of the appeal court, pointing out that there was insufficient proof that the
testator had read the agreement and voluntarily approved it. It came to the conclusion that the
appeal lacked merit and was dismissed because there was no privity of contract between the
appellant and the respondent, and the agreement had no legal force on the non-consenting
beneficiary.
The court also observed that “Furthermore, Section 15 which defines 'coercion' and Section 16
which defines 'undue influence' renders all such contracts illegal and unenforceable if they are
impregnated with undue influence or coercion.”9
8
Rajan vs. Sarada MANU/KE/1614/2021
9
Kuldeep Singh vs. Suresh, (2022) 205 PLR 611, MANU/PH/1894/2021
Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
Karnataka High Court
10. In this instance, the propounder claimed that the testator, as the property's owner, had committed
to selling it to him at a certain price and filed for particular performance of the contract. The
testator allegedly refused to finalize the transaction after the proponent paid an advance as agreed
upon and accused him of deceit, fraud, and coercion. The testator further contended that the actual
value of the property was significantly higher and claimed that after losing his spouse, he was
persuaded to sign a modified sale agreement for an undervalued sum because he was emotionally
vulnerable and dependent on others.
The trial court found that the testator's consent was not freely given, as the propounder had
allegedly used undue influence and misrepresented the property’s value. Additionally, the
propounder was deemed not to have shown consistent readiness and willingness to fulfill his
obligations. The court thus dismissed the suit, concluding that the alleged agreement lacked the
necessary legal consent and refusing specific performance. The propounder’s appeal was also
dismissed, affirming the trial court's findings.
The court also observed that “Section 17 of the Contract Act provides that where one person or his
agent or with his connivance with an intent to deceive other party or his agent or to induce him to
enter into the contract, the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not
believe it to be true; active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; a
promise made without any intention of performing it and any other act fitted to deceive.”10
Bombay High Court
11. The petitioner was in a business that produces laminated tubes, challenged a negative ruling made
by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT ruling that
the petitioner had engaged in fraud by allegedly falsifying invoices to obtain invalid CENVAT
credits for labor services unrelated to manufacturing operations was the basis for the appeal. The
adjudicating authority partially permitted the service tax credit, upholding a penalty for
purportedly excessive claims, after the tax authority first questioned the validity of the credit on
labor charges. However, citing disparities in the way the invoices were presented, CESTAT
rejected the appeal and declared the petitioner's activities to be fraudulent.
The petitioner then submitted a rectification motion to have this fraud accusation dropped. This
request was turned down by CESTAT, which even assessed fees. The petitioner contested the
fraud verdict, arguing it damaged its reputation, but paid its taxes under an amnesty plan.
CESTAT's fraud verdict was ultimately overturned by the Bombay High Court, which determined
that it had been made without conducting a thorough investigation or giving the petitioner enough
10
J. Somashekar vs. Appuramanand Sharma; 2021(3) AKR 230, 2021(3) KCCR 2664, MANU/KA/1543/2021
time to refute the fraud accusation. The Court expunged the fraud claim from CESTAT's order,
ruling that such grave charges necessitate precise evidence and due process.
The court also observed that “Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, 'fraud' has been defined under
section 17. As per this definition, fraud means and includes the acts mentioned thereunder
committed by a party to a contract or with his connivance or by his agent with the intent to
deceive another party thereto or his agent or to induce him to enter into the contract. The acts
mentioned in section 17 includes active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief
of the fact. While we are in the Contract Act, we may also mention that misrepresentation is
separately defined thereunder. As per section 18, representation means and includes- (1) the
positive assertion in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that
which is not true, though he believes it to be true; (2) any breach of duty which without an intent
to deceive gains an advantage to the person committing it or any one claiming under him by
misleading another to his prejudice or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; and (3)
causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the
thing which is the subject of the agreement.11”
11
Essel Propack Limited vs. Union of India; 2021 (377) ELT73 (Bom.), MANU/MH/0930/2021
