Back
B. SYAMSUNDER
Thamma Ramakrishnarao Ramakrishna Raju – Appellant
Versus
Sanapala Ramamurthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B. SYAMSUNDER, J.
1. The defendants No. 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 83 of 1997 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam are the appellants. The respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff in the suit, whereas respondents No. 2 to 4 are the defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit. Originally, the suit was filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff against the appellants and respondents No. 2 to 4 seeking partition of plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allot one such share to him and for possession.
2. The respondents No. 2 to 4 who are defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit remained ex-parte before trial Court as well in the 1st Appellate Court.
3. The appellants and respondent No. 1 herein after referred to as defendants No. 4, 5 and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The Plaintiff instituted the suit against defendants No. 1 to 5 for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to him and for mesne profits. The plaint schedule properties consist of three items wherein terraced buildings and tiled house situated at Amadalavalasa town. It is the contention of the plaintiff that one Mr. K. Suryanarayana is the original owner
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial court, especially when the trial court has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
A Will's validity can be proved by one attesting witness's credible testimony despite absence of others, and appellate courts must respect trial findings unless proven erroneous.
Secondary evidence – Neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done ....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove title on the strength of his/her own case and he/she cannot rely upon the laches or weaknesses....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of wills must be proved in the manner known to law, and failure to do so may result in the wills being disbelieved by the court.
The burden of proof on the propounder of the Will and the requirement to prove the Will in compliance with the relevant acts.
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
