NCLAT: Can File Appeal against NCLT Order Initiating Insolvency Process against Personal Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Assets Reflecting in Corporate Debtor’s Balance Sheet form Part of Liquidation Estate  ||  NCLAT: Adjudicating Authority Must Conduct Independent Assessment under IBC  ||  NCLAT: Can’t Preclude Financial Creditors from Filing Applic. in Case of Settlement Agreement Breach  ||  NCLT: Can’t Call Speculative Investment a 'Financial Debt' in Absence of Commercial Effect of Borrowi  ||  NCLAT: Committee of Creditors Within its Right to Resolve to Liquidate Go Airlines  ||  AP HC: Revealed Particulars of Invest. Not Adequately Substantiated Can Damage Reputation of Persons  ||  J&K HC: Administrative Officers Can’t Claim Seniority on Basis of Unfilled Vacancies  ||  Bombay High Court: One Needs to be Mindful of the Object Behind the Consumer Protection Act  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Put Accused under Prev. Detention Only because His Release Affects Public Confidence    

Murphy vs. Lewis - (23 Jul 2021)

Grant of probate in solemn form cannot be made simply by consent of the parties

Property

The Plaintiff commenced present action by writ for proof of a will in solemn form. The Plaintiff seeks an order that, the last will and testament executed on 9 April 2020 by the late Eileen Margaret Roberts (the deceased) who died on 14 April 2020 (aged 75 years) has force and effect in solemn form.

A grant of probate in solemn form cannot be made simply by consent of the parties. The Plaintiff is obliged to prove that the will is formally valid and made by a testator or testatrix who had the capacity to do so. However, the fact that the parties have agreed upon orders to resolve this matter is a relevant consideration.

For a grant in solemn form, the court must be satisfied on the evidence adduced by the party propounding the will, or by any other party to the suit of the due execution of the will by at least one of the attesting witnesses, and where the circumstances raise strong doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased it is advisable to call medical evidence, if available, to show capacity. However, the propounder of the will may take advantage of the rule that the will properly executed is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to have been made by a person competent and understanding.

Thus, as senior counsel for the Plaintiff points out, it is well-established that two important presumptions of fact arise in the proof of the final will of a deceased. These are: (a) a duly executed will, rational on its face, is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be that of a person of competent understanding (or of testamentary capacity); and (b) unless suspicion attaches to the will, the testator's due execution of the will is sufficient evidence that the testator knew and approved of the terms of the will.

Having considered the uncontradicted evidence, in particular the evidence of three independent witnesses, two of whom are medical practitioners, and the other, who was at the time of taking the deceased's instructions for her will, a certified legal practitioner, present Court is satisfied to the requisite standard that: (a) the deceased held full testamentary capacity; (b) she knew and approved of the contents of the will; and (c) the will was executed validly in accordance with Section 8 of the Wills Act, 1970. A grant of probate in solemn form, as proposed by the parties, should issue.

Tags : PROBATE   SOLEMN FORM   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved