Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT
HYDERABAD
G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.
Pinnaka Hanumantha Rao (died) per LR and another - Petitioners.
Vs.
Garlapati Dhanalakshmi alias Andallu - Respondents.
First Appeal No. 1485 of 1994 and
A.S.M.P.No.1717 of 2006
Decided on 25-1-2007.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. T. Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for the Appellants in Appeal and Respondents in ASMP.
Mr. M. Ramakanth for Mr. M.S.N. Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent in Appeal and Petitioner in ASMP.
Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act – Section 24 (a) – Declaration of Title – Possession – Whether the Will by Pinnaka Nageswara Rao in favour of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendants – Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title, possession and future mesne profits in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties against the defendants – Held, While neither party provided the assistance of expert opinion to the Court, the trial Courts comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures is not found to be incorrect – When Will was written on the instructions of Nageswara Rao in Telugu and it is clear that the contents were as per his opinion and on his dictation, any mechanical requirement of the witnesses stating that the contents were read over to him and he admitted them, need not be insisted upon when that was what the witnesses stated in effect and substance – Plaintiff sought for only future profits from the date of the suit on the suit properties which have to be determined on a separate application and the amounts reimbursable by the plaintiff to the defendants can be duly debited from such future mesne profits on their determination if the plaintiff does not pay them in the meanwhile to the defendants and whichever party is due to the other on such accounting can be accordingly directed by the trial Court to pay – Plaintiff is entitled to the suit reliefs accordingly – A.S.M.P. Dismissed
The presence of the propounder at the time of the will’s execution is not by itself sufficient to disbelieve or doubt the validity of the will. The primary focus is on whether the will was executed in accordance with the legal requirements, such as the testator's sound mental capacity, understanding of the nature and effect of the dispositions, and free will in signing the document. The court considers suspicious circumstances, like unnatural provisions or exclusion of natural heirs without explanation, which may raise doubts irrespective of the propounder’s presence (!) .
While the presence of the propounder can support the credibility of the execution, it does not automatically lead to disbelief. The overall circumstances, the conduct of the testator, and the evidence of proper execution play a more significant role in determining the will’s validity. If there are no suspicious circumstances and the evidence shows proper execution, the will is likely to be accepted as valid, regardless of whether the propounder was present at the time of signing (!) .
In conclusion, the presence of the propounder at the time of execution is a relevant factor but not a decisive one for disbelief. The court’s assessment depends on the totality of evidence and circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 70 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Addanki, dated 30-8-1994 granting declaration of title to and possession of plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff with future mesne profits and costs, while making the delivery of plaint B schedule properties subject to payment of the amount paid by defendants 1 and 2, by the plaintiff, the unsuccessful defendants filed the present appeal.
2.The facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person claiming that the 1st defendant is the son and the 2nd defendant is the wife of Pinnaka Nageswara Rao, and due to differences, the 2nd defendant left to her parents house along with the 1st defendant a few months after the birth of the 1st defendant and she demanded through elders settlement of her claim for maintenance and the 1st defendants share in the family properties. Pinnaka Nageswara Rao agreed and the 1st defendant was given his share in the family properties under registered partition deed dated 22-07-1962, in which the 2nd defendant represented the minor 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant also executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Nageswara Rao in respect of her maintenance claim and since then Pinnaka Nageswara Rao and the defendants were living separately, enjoying their properties separately in their own right. Nageswara Rao was living with Ravi Rangaiah, his maternal uncle, since 1962 and was looked after by Ravi Rangaiahs family including the plaintiff, as there was none else to look after him. As he developed chest discomfort prior to 23-10-1982, Pinnaka Nageswara Rao executed a Will in a sound and disposing state of mind on 23-10-1982 bequeathing the plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff, the daughter of Ravi Rangaiah. Nageswara Rao died on 25-10-1982. While item 1 of plaint A schedule fell to the share of Nageswara Rao in the partition, items 2 and 3 were acquired by him after the partition. He pledged plaint B schedule gold jewels to the Union Bank of India, Ravinuthala and Andhra Bank, Ravinuthala borrowing Rs. 6,000/-, and borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Pamidipadu, which debts have to be discharged by the plaintiff as per the Will. The defendants filed caveats against the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessed her from the plaint A schedule properties, a week prior to the suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person.
3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that immediately after the marriage with the 2nd defendant, Nageswara Rao developed bad habits like gambling and debauchery and Nageswara Rao and the 1st defendant partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed in 1962. After partition, Nageswara Rao sold some properties and purchased items 2 and 3 of plaint A schedule with the income from the land sold. In spite of partition, Nageswara Rao was living with the defendants and leading marital life with the 2nd defendant till his sudden death intestate on 25-10-1982 due to heart attack. The defendants succeeded to the plaint A and B schedule properties as the sole heirs of Nageswara Rao and the Will dated 23-10-1982 is a rank forgery. Nageswara Rao being looked after by Ravi Rangaiah or the plaintiff since 1962, is false. The creditors of Nageswara Rao filed suits against the defendants for recovery of their debts. The pledge of gold jewellery mentioned in the plaint B schedule to the Union Bank of India and Andhra Bank, Ravinuthala by borrowing some amounts, is true. The plaintiff added as a party in O.S.No.21 of 1983 of the Principal District Munsifs Court, Addanki, contested as 3rd defendant claiming testamentary succession, while the defendants herein remained ex parte and the suit was dismissed on 20-06-1989 with the observation that the plaintiff is not the debtor under testamentary succession. The same operates as res judicata and the cause of
gpt-4
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
