Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Thangam and Another – Appellants
Versus
Navamani Ammal – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011
Decided On : 04-03-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 – Specific admission and denial of pleadings in plaint – Same would necessarily mean dealing with allegations in plaint para-wise – In absence thereof, respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in written statement to make out his case of denial of allegations in plaint resulting in utter confusion – In case, defendant/respondent wishes to take any preliminary objections, same can be taken in a separate set of paragraphs specifically so as to enable plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same in replication/rejoinder – Additional pleadings can also be raised in written statement, if required – These facts specifically stated in a set of paragraphs will always give opportunity to plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same – This in turn will enable Court to properly comprehend pleadings of parties instead of digging facts from various paragraphs of plaint and written statement. (Paras 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3)
(B) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Genuineness of registered Will – From evidence of witnesses with reference to health of testator, Will cannot be held to be suspicious on the ground of alleged ill-health of testator at the time of execution of Will – Testator had put his thumb impression on Will and Scribe of Will witnessed the same – Testator was fully conscious of welfare of his widow and minor daughter as sufficient property was left for them – There is nothing on record to suggest that appellants were taking care of property left by testator immediately after his death or that any steps were taken by them to get the same mutated in their favour – No error has been committed by High Court in holding that Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9.5, 10, 10.1, 12.2 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Issue under consideration in present appeal is regarding genuineness of Will dated 09.10.1984, which is a registered document, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma. Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was decreed by Trial Court, holding Will to be genuine. In appeal by appellants, judgment and decree of Trial Court was reversed by First Appellate Court. In second appeal filed by respondent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored by High Court.
Findings of Court:
In absence of para-wise reply to plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in plaint is either admitted or denied in written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to allegation in different paras.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The issue under consideration in the present appeal is regarding genuineness of the Will dated 09.10.1984, which is a registered document, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma.
2. A suit1[O.S. No. 402 of 1986] filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was decreed by the Trial Court2[Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur], holding the Will to be genuine. In appeal3[Appeal Suit No. 7 of 1991] by the appellants, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court4[Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur]. In second appeal5[Second Appeal No. 1344 of 1996] filed by the respondent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored by the High Court6[High Court of Judicature at Madras].
3. Before we embark upon to consider the issues in detail, we deem it appropriate to mention the relations between the parties and certain brief facts.
3.1. The testator of the Will dated 09.10.1984, Palaniandi Udayar, was the husband of appellant no. 1 Thangam and father of appellant no. 2 Laila.
3.2. The Will was executed on 09.10.1984 in favour of Navamani Amma/Plaintiff, who as per the narration in the Will is said to be daughter of the brother of the testator.
3.3. The defendant in the suit originally filed was widow of the testator, however, later on his minor daughter was also impleaded. Both are the appellants before this Court.
3.4 The appellant no. 1 is the third wife of the testator. The earlier two wives expired and were not having any child from the loins of the testator.
3.5 Even as per the admitted case of the defendant no. 1/widow of the testator, the testator was having total land about 8 acres besides three houses.
3.6 By way of Will, the testator had bequeathed approximately 3.5 Acres of land in favour of the plaintiff stating therein that she is like his daughter, being daughter of his brother. The value of the suit property was estimated to be about Rs.16,000/-.
ARGUMENTS
4. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the High Court was that the execution of Will was surrounded by various suspicious circumstances and deserves to be discarded as was rightly done by the First Appellate Court. The finding of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court was erroneously reversed by the High Court without the same being perverse. Re-appreciation of the facts merely to come to another possible conclusion does not fall within the scope of consideration of a matter in second appeal. There was no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal before the High Court. There were discrepancies in the statements of the scribe and the attesting witnesses to the Will. The health of the testator was not good and he was not in a position to understand and comprehend the contents of the Will. There were differences in the thumb impressions of the testator on the Will and on the register in the office of the Sub-Registrar.
5. Though, admittedly the testator left behind his widow and a minor daughter but there is no mention in the Will about the same. How their interest was taken care of, the Will is silent. In fact, the appellants were in possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the respondent was totally misconceived.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the execution of Will by a person in favour of any other relative always would mean that the testator wishes to take away some property from the normal course of inheritance. In fact, the respondent being like daughter to the testator was taking care of his health, who was suffering from asthma and chronic cough. It is not that the entire property owned by the testator was given to the respondent by way of Will, rather it was only a part thereof. She is in possession of the suit property after the death of the testator. The n
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
The validity of a will is undermined when it is executed under suspicious circumstances, necessitating the propounder to dispel these doubts for the document to be accepted legally.
The court emphasized that the validity of a registered Will must be presumed if the opposing party admits its execution, shifting the burden to challenge its validity onto the contesting heirs.
A registered Will has presumptive validity unless evidence demonstrates its invalidity, and execution shortly before death does not necessarily indicate suspicious circumstances.
The propounder of a will must dispel any suspicious circumstances regarding its execution; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.
Registered Will's genuineness presumed; proof under Evidence Act Sections 68/69 via signature identification by witnesses suffices when attesting witnesses unavailable; disputing party must prove sus....
A will must be executed freely and without undue influence; if suspicious circumstances exist, the burden is on the propounder to dispel them to validate the will.
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
