(Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
M. Muralidhar Prabhu and Another ___________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Vinayak Pai ______________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No…..……of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8018 of 2023), decided on February 18, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. Whether the settlement deed dated 20.11.2012 was executed with sound disposition intended to reverse the Will dated 12.09.2011, is the question arising in this appeal. The appellants are the plaintiff and the second defendant who claimed under the Will jointly with the first defendant, while the latter claims it exclusively for himself on the strength of the settlement deed. The parties are referred to from their status in the suit and the executant of both the documents as testator.
3. The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the testator, the first defendant the grandson of his sister-in-law and the second defendant, the son of another sister-in-law. From the evidence, it is clear that the testator was residing with the second defendant and his family in one portion of the house in the scheduled property and before his death, as asserted by the first defendant, the testator was residing with that defendant, in the other portion of the house.
4. The Will was executed on 12.09.2011 by the testator, bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants. The Will also ensured that the first defendant would be entitled to the deposits in the bank, the insurance amount and the gold ornaments in the possession of the testator. The first defendant admits the Will and also admits having kept for himself the money and the jewelry. The Will was also prepared by PW-4, an Advocate who was the scribe and also an attesting witness. PW3, the clerk of PW4 and an attesting witness, stated in detail about the preparation of the Will in the office of the Advocate. However, PW-4 also stated that he was the scribe of the settlement deed which was executed on 20.11.2012 which is belied by the document itself which shows the name of another advocate.
5. The trial court after considering the entire evidence led, found that the settlement deed was executed with unsound disposition of mind, especially relying on the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, the Psychiatrist and the General Physician who had been treating the testator at that point of time. The suit for partition filed by the plaintiff was decreed, finding the settlement deed to be not one executed with sound disposition of mind. The High Court, on appeal by the first defendant overturned the decision finding that the doctors were not clear as to whether the patient suffered from dementia. PW-6 was found to have categorically stated that he did not treat the patient for mental illness. PW-5, the Psychiatrist was held to have stated that the delirium of the patient was on account of shortage of sodium; on replenishment of which the patient would have resumed normalcy.
6. We have gone through the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 and we are unable to accept the findings of the High Court. PW-6 was a medical practitioner who was looking after the general health of the family right from the time when the wife of the testator was alive. Even after the death of the wife, the husband was under the treatment of PW-6. The testator of the Will and the executant of the settlement deed was thus under the medical care of PW-6. The testator having shown signs of delirium, it was PW-6 who referred the testator to PW-5, the Psychiatrist. The mental health of the testator was specifically spoken of by PW-5. The testator was stated to have been suffering from dementia at the time when the settlement deed was executed.
7. It is also very pertinent that the settlement deed, though proved through an attesting witness (DW2) and was also a registered document, seems to have been prepared by an Advocate by name Mr. Prashanth Poojary. The evidence of PW-4, the Advocate who prepared the Will and who was also the brother-in-law of the first defendant was that in fact he prepared the said settlement deed. Pertinent is also the fact that the Will was not referred to in the settlement deed. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping the testator from executing a fresh Will in favour of the first defendant, which however would have required a higher degree of proof than a settlement deed.
8. In any event, the execution of the settlement deed has been found to be at a time when the executant was not in a sound disposition of mind. As has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the principle in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao1, squarely applies. Reiterating the trite law that the burden of proof of a Will was squarely on the propounder, it was also held that if a defense is raised of fraud, coercion or undue influence, the burden to prove the same is on the person who raises such a claim.
9. In the present case, the settlement deed was asserted by the first defendant and the suspicion on its execution with sound disposition of mind was raised by the plaintiff and the second defendant. The suspicion raised on the ground of the executant not being in a sound disposition of mind was proved by sufficient evidence led through the medical practitioners. The manner in which the settlement deed was executed was not sufficiently proved by the person who claimed under it, the first defendant. The first defendant had also spoken of the testator having resided with him, attended family functions and he having regularly taken the testator to the doctor. The first defendant led no evidence on the several counts pleaded, through relatives and the doctor to whom the testator was taken.
10. In the totality of the circumstances coming out from the evidence led, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in reversing the well-considered judgment of the trial court. The Will was admitted and the first defendant, the beneficiary under the subsequent settlement deed, had acted in furtherance of the Will by appropriating to himself the money and jewelry left by the testator. The scheduled property was to be shared by the plaintiff and the two defendants. The settlement deed later executed, as was found from the evidence led, was at a time when the executant was not in a sound disposition of mind. The judgment of the High Court is hence set aside and that of the trial court is restored holding the plaintiff and the two defendants entitled to share the scheduled property, equally amongst themselves.
11. The appeal is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 (2006) 13 SCC 433
