. One of the heirs filed an objection to the probate of the will based on the circumstances of its execution and the manner of the estate's distribution, while the will had a provision under which an heir who applies to the Court or files an objection to the probate of the will shall be disinherited from its share in the estate.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, holding that an in-terrorem clause (no-contest clause) in a will does not apply when the heir acted in good faith and with a reasonable cause of action for the objection. An in-terrorem clause is a testamentary provision disinheriting a beneficiary of its share in the estate if it initiates legal proceedings contrary to the testator's directions-whether by contesting the validity of the will under inheritance law, bringing a claim regarding the scope of the estate based on external causes of action, or a combination of both. As a general rule, an in-terrorem clause is valid under the principle of honouring the testator's intent; however, a clause intended to prevent challenges to a will is not enforced against an heir who objected in good faith and on reasonable, substantial grounds, in order to protect the right of access to the Courts and to prevent the concealment of defects in the will. The legal classification of an in-terrorem clause is determined according to three scenarios: a mistake in the drafting of the will, a deliberate proposal by the testator to the heirs, or a doubtful proposal where the scales are balanced and no definitive determination can be made. In the present case, the heir did not act out of vexatiousness or improper motives, but rather turned to the Court and raised genuine arguments regarding defects in the drafting of the will and the distribution of the property. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial Court to examine the facts to decide whether to disinherit the heir or to grant to her a share in the estate.