Finding That 'Will Is Validy Executed' Doesn't Mean 'Will Is Genuine' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that once the execution of the will is proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, then it shall be the 'irrecusable duty' of Court to call upon a propounder to remove any raised suspicious circumstances. A Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court though held that the will was duly executed but at the same time also found that it was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. and Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors., it went on to observe: “At the same time, if it is taken that the learned Single Judge had only recorded that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the execution in terms of the provisions under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the light of the well-neigh settled position of law, it would be open to the Court to consider, rather, it is the irrecusable duty of the Court in case the objector raises suspicious circumstances, to call upon the propounder to remove such suspicious circumstances to satisfy its conscious. Thus, it is evident that it was without making such an endeavour and exercise that the Division Bench held that in view of the finding with respect to the genuineness of the Will, the learned Single Judge could not have proceeded with the consideration whether the Will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances.” Based on this, the Court rejected the approach taken by the Division Bench and said that the reasoned decision of the Single Bench cannot be interfered with.