Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Ryali Kameswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Bendapudi Suryaprakasarao - Respondent
Decided On : 12-02-60
WILL - Proof - Onus of proof - Circumstances exciting suspicion of the Court - Principles of law - Will of Seshagiri Rao dated 26-2-1942 - Genuineness and testamentary capacity - Will of Ramamma dated 21-8-1954 - Genuineness and testamentary capacity - Undue influence - Held, both wills are true and genuine.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ryali Kameswara Rao, the brother of late Seshariri Rao launched an action claiming the lands houses, personal effects, outstanding and deposits that Ramamma died possessed of and described in Schedule A to E and for a declaration that the will alleged to have been executed by her on 21-8-1954 is neither genuine, nor valid, that she died intestate and for other ancillary reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the will of Seshagiri Rao dated 26-2-1942 is the last will and testament executed by him in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of the attests. The court also held that the will of Ramamma dated 21-8-1954 was executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind and that it is true and binding on the plaintiff. The court further held that the allegations that the will of Ramamma dated 21-8-1954 was brought about by undue influence of defendants 1 to 8 had not been made out.
Issues: 1. Whether the will dated 26-2-1942 executed by Seshagiri Rao is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether the will dated 21-8-1954 executed by Ramamma Garu, is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the said will was brought about by undue influence by defendants 1 to 8.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the onus of proving a will lies on the propounder and that the court must be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument. The court also held that the fact that a person writes or prepares a will under which he takes a benefit is a circumstance that ought generally to excite the suspicion of the Court and calls upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument. The court further held that the standard of proof required to prove a will is one that will satisfy a normal prudent person.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge.
( 2 ) ON 22nd of August 1954, one Ryali Ramamma, the widow of Ryali Sashagiri Rao, died, in the house of her sister, Chandramathi the 1st defendant in the suit, at Eluru. On 21-9-1954 the appellant, Ryali Kameswara Rao, the brother of late Seshariri Rao launched an action claiming the lands houses, personal effects, outstanding and deposits that Ramamma died possessed of and described in Schedule A to E and for a declaration that the will alleged to have been executed by her on 21-8-1954 is neither genuine, nor valid, that she died intestate and for other ancillary reliefs.
( 3 ) ORIGINALLY 19 defendants were impleaded in the suit. The 1st defendant is the sister of the deceased Ramamma. After the institution of the suit the 1st defendant died and in addition to defendants 2 to 8 who were already on record her daughter, Mallampalli Suseela, was declared as her legal representative and was impleaded as the 20th defendants 2 to 7 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 8th defendant is her husband. Defendants 9 to 19 have been impleaded as being tenants in possession of certain items of properties described in Schedules A and B to the plaint.
( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint is as follows: Seshagiri Rao was the divided elder brother of the plaintiff. He died childless and intestate in February 1942 leaving several properties, moveable and immoveable, some acquired in his own name and others in the name of his wife. After his death his widow Ramamma was in possession of the properties, moveable and immoveable, some acquired in his own name and others in the name of his wife. After his death his widow Ramamma was in possession of the properties as a limited owner and made several accretions thereto. Ramamma contracted tuberculosis a year prior to her death and died on 22-8-1954. The plaintiff who is the nearest heir to Seshagiri Rao is entitled to the properties described in Schedules A to E, When he came to Eluru on the 25th of August 1954 to claim his reversion, defendants 1 to 8 set up a will alleged to have been executed by Ramamma on 21-8-1954. Ramamma, it is alleged, executed no such will, that she was too ill to do so, and any document purporting to be her last will should be a forgery. He claimed therefore for the possession of the properties and other declarations and reliefs to already.
( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 8 and defendant 20 in their written statements pleaded that Seshagiri Rao on 26-2-1942 leaving a registered will bequeathing all his properties absolutely to Ramamma and giving her also a power to adopt a boy of her own personal stridhanam properties to defendants 1 to 8 in the manner provided in her will. It is, therefore, alleged that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the properties or to seek the declarations asked for in the plaint. The correctness of the Schedule B and C has also been challenged.
( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 9 to 19 are tenants in possession of various items of properties in Schedule A and B. Defendant 19 set up an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by Ramamma on 8-8-1954. Their defenses have no material bearing upon the main question that fell to be decided by the trail court or debated before us.
( 7 ) UPON the contentions contained in the pleadings the trail court framed as many as 16 issues. The relevant issues for the disposal of the present appeal are issues 4,5and 6 which are in these terms: 4. "whether the will dated 26-2-1942 executed by Seshagiri Rao is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 5. Whether the will dated 21-8-1954 executed by Ramamma Garu, is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 6. Whether the said will was brought about by undue influence by defendants 1 to 8. "
( 8 ) ON issues 4, the finding of the learned judge is that the will alleged to have been executed by Seshagiri Rao on 26-2-1942 is the last will and testame
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
