Back
TARUN CHATTERJEE, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
K. Laxmanan – Appellant
Versus
Thekkayil Padmini – Respondent
The will was not proved solely by the attesting witnesses. Instead, several parameters were used to evaluate the validity of the will. The courts examined the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, such as the inability to examine the attesting witnesses due to their death or poor health, and the discrepancies in signatures. The courts also considered the physical and mental condition of the testator at the time of execution, as well as the unnatural or improbable dispositions in the will. Additionally, the absence of primary evidence from the attesting witnesses and the failure to prove the genuineness of signatures contributed to the conclusion that the will was not duly proved. Therefore, the verification of the will involved assessing suspicious circumstances, the condition of the testator, and the absence of attesting witnesses' testimony, rather than relying solely on the attesting witnesses' testimony.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Deed of Will and Gift are the bone of contention between the parties in this appeal. Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant is one Shri Chathu who had three daughters and a son. He died in the year 1975 leaving behind him the aforesaid son and three daughters and a number of properties.
3. The present appellant was the contesting defendant being the fifth defendant and is a son of Chathu. The respondent No. 1 herein is one of the daughters of Chathu and was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by her after demise of Chathu contending inter alia that the property left behind by Chathu devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants equally and therefore they are entitled to one fourth share each. In the plaint, suit property was mentioned as item Nos. 1 to 12. Subsequently, plaintiff also incorporated Item Nos. 13 and 14 in the plaint for division.
4. In the written statement filed by the present appellant, he stated that items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule property were assigned in his favour by virtue of a document Ext. B1 and items 13 and 14 were assigned in his favour by virtue of Ext. B4. I
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
