Gopal Sri Ram JCA in Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor 2 MLJ 97, *136; [2003] 2 MLJ 97.
[120] It was submitted for the plaintiffs before us that since the deceased had loved his daughters much more than his sons; showing little more than contempt for the latter; it is surprising that he should leave only a small bequest to each of the plaintiffs. With respect, we are unable to accept this argument. A court of probate must first be satisfied that a testator understood the dispositions of a will, and that it was duly executed by him as his will. Once so satisfied, it is not concerned with the fairness of the will. A court must resist the natural temptation to set aside a will on the ground that it does not appear to be fair, equitable or just. Here, we would gratefully adopt the language of Lord Buckmaster in Arunachalam Chetty v Ramaswami Chetty in the passage to which we have lent emphasis.
[121] In Surendra Pal v Saraswati Arora AIR 1974 SC 1999, Jaganmohan Reddy J, after quoting the following passage from the Privy Council case of Motibai Hormusjee v Jamsetjee AIR 1924 PC 28 at p 33 :
A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full
comprehension of what he is doing the court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition.
[122] went on to say as follows:
It is not for us to fathom the motivations of a man. His actions and
reactions are unpredictable as they depend upon so many circumstances. There is, however, always some dominant and impelling circumstances which motivate a man's action though in some cases even a trivial and trifling cause impels him to act in a particular way which a majority of others may not do. At times psychological factors and the frame of mind in which he is, may determine his action.
No comments:
Post a Comment