SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(AP) 196

RAMA RAO
TYNALA MUSALAYYA – Appellant
Versus
J. MOHANRAJ – Respondent


RAMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Revision Petition is against the order allowing the petition to add the respondent herein as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 C. P. C. The averments in the affidavit in support of the petition are that the sole plaintiff died on 20-4-1980 and she had no issues. The deceased plaintiff executed registered will in favour of the petitioner on 17-2-1977 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties and therefore he is the only heir and legatee to the property of the plaintiff. This petition was resisted on the ground that the alleged will was not executed in sound disposing state of mind and the suit cannot proceed in the absence of production of succession certificate and the petition is not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE court below examined two witnesses and marked Ex. A-1 i. e. , the registered will dated 17-2-1977 and found that Ex. A-l is genuine and the petitioner is the only legatee of the deceased plaintiff and held that the petitioner should be added as a legal representative of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless the will is probated








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top