Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL
Leela – Appellant
Versus
Muruganantham – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(C.T. Ravikumar, J.)
1. The unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 in OS No.142/1992 which is a suit for partition and allotment of 5/7th share filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, filed this appeal against the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in AS No.368/2002 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 142 of 1992 dated 27.09.2001 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi was confirmed. Essentially, the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently declined to accept the case of the appellants based on the Will dated 06.04.1990. Hereafter in this appeal, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, in accordance with their rank and status in the Original Suit, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.
2. The plaint averments, in brief is as follows: -
The suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. He married twice. Through his first wife, Rajammal (plaintiff No.4/respondent No.4), he got three sons, namely, Muruganandam (plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1), Ganesh Murthy (plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2) and Kannan (plaintiff No.3/res
Proof of execution of Will – Mere registration of Will would not attach to it stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of legal mandates under provisions of Section 63 of Succession Act....
The court reaffirmed that a will must be proven free of suspicious circumstances, particularly when it excludes dependents with known health issues, rendering the presented will invalid.
The burden of proof for the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and a will may still be valid even if it lacks a signature on every page, provided it meets statutory requirements.
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 prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
The court affirmed the validity of a Will and upheld its execution despite claims of suspicion, indicating that the exclusion of a child does not inherently nullify a Will.
The father of the coparceners had no right to bequeath ancestral property via Will. Wills are invalid unless proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
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
