This case involves a legal battle over the will of a deceased person. His elder daughter, who wasn’t mentioned in the will, challenged its validity in Court.
The deceased left his assets to his wife and younger daughter, excluding the elder daughter. He also created a trust for his 
granddaughters (children of the younger daughter). His wife and a close friend were appointed as executors.
The elder daughter, living separate from her family, contested the will in District Court. She argued that her father wasn’t mentally fit due to illness when he wrote the will. She maintained his wife pressured him into making the will in her favour.
It was also submitted the notary used his family members as witnesses, which is potentially illegal.
Valid will
The District Court agreed with the daughter, declared the will invalid, and ruled that the deceased passed away without a will (intestate). However upon appeal, Court of Appeal overruled the District Court, declared the will valid, and granted probate to the wife and friend. Probate is a Court ruling that the will is valid.
The elder daughter sought further appeal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal made a crucial error. (Ellawala v. Wijewardena and Another – SLR – 45, Vol 2 of 1991 [1991] LKSC 4; (1991) 2 Sri LR 45 (19 December 1991).) She claimed the issue of her father’s mental state was raised in court but ignored by the Court of Appeal.
The case hinged upon the validity of the will, specifically whether the deceased was mentally sound and free from undue influence when he wrote it. The elder daughter was of the view the Court of Appeal unfairly dismissed her claims about her father’s mental capacity.
If her appeal succeeded, it could invalidate the will and lead to a different distribution of the deceased’s assets.
The daughter, referred to as the intervenient-petitioner in this case in the District Court, challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision on two key points. (An intervenient petitioner is a person who seeks to intervene in a case involving other parties.) Counsel for the appellant submitted Court dismissed the question of the testator’s mental fitness (testamentary capacity) unfairly. It was submitted that this issue was raised in their initial objections and pleadings, specifically referencing the testator’s illness and hospitalization at the time the will was signed.
Mental state
The judgement states that despite the intervenient-petitioner’s argument, the Court of Appeal concluded there is no reason for an appeal on this point. They reviewed the evidence and found no suspicious details raising doubt about the testator’s mental state at the time.
The Intervenient-Petitioner raised questions about the testator’s mental state due to illness and hospitalization, suggesting this was addressed in their objections and pleadings.
Court of Appeal had dismissed the testamentary capacity issue as not properly raised, but also independently reviewed, leading to the conclusion that there is no evidence suggesting the testator lacked mental capacity to sign the will.
The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and expert opinions, concluding the will was “rational or natural” and reflected the testator’s wishes. While the intervenient-petitioner focused on undue influence as a challenge, the Court of Appeal acknowledged other possible grounds such as testamentary capacity.
Mental capacity
The intervenient-petitioner presented evidence of the testator’s physical condition (illness, medication) but couldn’t prove it affected his mental capacity. The Court of appeal judgment stated that the testator actively participated in preparing the will, even requesting clarifications and demonstrating awareness of his actions.
Witnesses, including an attorney and a doctor, found the testator mentally alert and capable of making decisions.
Based on the presented arguments and evidence, the Court of Appeal denied the intervenient-petitioner’s appeal on the grounds of testamentary capacity. While her counsel raised valid points about the initial pleadings and potential challenges, the overall evidence supported the testator’s mental fitness at the time the will was signed.
The Supreme Court judgement agreed with the Court of Appeal that the testator was physically ill but there’s no evidence it affected his mental capacity. He actively participated in preparing his will, giving instructions and reviewing documents. Witnesses, including a doctor, found him mentally alert and capable of making decisions.
Furthermore the judgment states the testator and his daughter (intervening petitioner) were estranged since 1974. He excluded her from previous wills, calling her “difficult.” There were weak attempts at reconciliation, but no real contact, the judgment observes.
Minor adjustments
The testator’s lawyer, who knew his wishes, oversaw the will’s execution. He again excluded the daughter and made minor adjustments between his wife and other daughter. The Supreme Court judges observed the witnesses to the signing were the lawyer’s associates, which is legal but might raise concerns in other situations.
The Supreme Court ruled this doesn’t affect the will’s validity due to the lawyer’s confidence in the testator’s mental capacity.
The District Court judge believed the lawyer should have consulted the testator’s doctor. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying it’s not mandatory if the lawyer is certain of mental capacity.
The District Court judge suspected the testator’s wife influenced him due to their relationship. Supreme Court disagreed, stating undue influence requires proof of coercion or fraud at the time of making the will, which was absent in this instance.
The Supreme Court judgment states: “The District Judge was also of the opinion that the deceased was over a period of time under the influence of his wife and had a poor degree of independence. She was herself present at the time of the execution of the last will. The District Judge said that it was difficult to believe that the deceased had not been influenced when he gave instructions for the preparation of the will. Accordingly, he held that the will was obtained by duress or undue influence. The Court of Appeal held that according to the applicable principles of law, undue influence, if it is to vitiate the will, must be something in the nature of coercion or fraud existing at the time of making the will; and that in the instant case evidence of such undue influence is woefully lacking. We see no reason to disagree with that finding.”
The higher Court found no reason to doubt the will’s validity based on the presented arguments.
The testator’s physical illness didn’t affect his mental capacity to make a will. He was estranged from his daughter and intentionally excluded her from the will. The will was executed legally with no evidence of undue influence.
The application for special leave to appeal was disallowed with no costs.
