Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. SYAMSUNDER, J.
Thamma Ramakrishnarao Ramakrishna Raju – Petitioner
Versus
Sanapala Ramamurthy – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1327 of 2005
Decided On : 23-01-2023
WILL - TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY - EXECUTION - VALIDITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - APPELLATE COURT'S POWER TO INTERFERE WITH TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to him and for possession. The suit was based on an unregistered Will (Ex.A1) allegedly executed by Mr. Muralidhararao, who was the son of the original owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendants, who were the purchasers of the plaint schedule property from the other defendants, contested the suit, denying the validity of the Will and claiming that Mr. Muralidhararao lacked testamentary capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court, after considering the evidence, held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution and validity of Ex.A1 Will and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, however, reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants then filed a second appeal in the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Will dated 11.02.1995 said to have been executed by Mr. Muralidhararao is true and valid and whether Mr. Muralidhararao had testamentary capacity? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties and for possession as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for? 4. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of the necessary parties? 5. Whether the defendant No. 4 is entitled to ask for equities as prayed for?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the first appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's findings regarding the validity of Ex.A1 Will. 2. The High Court observed that the first appellate court failed to consider the evidence adduced by the defendants, including the testimony of witnesses who stated that Mr. Muralidhararao was neglected by the plaintiff and that he died at the house of the defendant No. 1, not at the plaintiff's house as claimed by the plaintiff. 3. The High Court also noted that the first appellate court placed the burden of proof on the defendants to prove that Mr. Muralidhararao was neglected by the plaintiff, which was an erroneous approach as the burden of proving the validity of the Will lay with the plaintiff. 4. The High Court further held that the first appellate court's findings were based on surmises and conjectures and that it failed to provide cogent reasons for disagreeing with the trial court's findings.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
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 of the plaint schedule property. He had two wives. Defendant No. 1 is the second wife of Late K. Suryanarayana through whom he got defendants No. 2 and 3 as his sons. He submits that first wife of Late K. Suryanarayana is no more, through her he got a son by name Mr. Muralidhararao and a daughter Smt. Jaya Lakshmi who also died and her husband is Mr. Narayana Murthy. The said Narayana Murthy’s sister is the wife of the plaintiff. He also stated that his mother-in-law is the sister of Mr. K. Suryanarayana. After the death of Mr. K. Suryanarayana, plaint schedule properties devolved upon defendants No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Muralidhararao in equal shares and said Mr. Muralidhararao was suffering from Asthma but defendants No. 1 to 3 refused to maintain Mr. Muralidhararao and they neglected to look after his welfare due to that said Mr. Muralidhararao has taken shelter with the plaintiff and lived with him for a period of five (5) years and died on 12.11.1995 at the house of the plaintiff. The main contention of the plaintiff is that Mr. Muralidhararao in a sound and disposing state of mind executed unregistered Will dated 11.02.1995 (Ex.A1) bequeathing his undivided one-fourth share in all his properties to the plaintiff which came into force after the death of Mr. Muralidhararao and then plaintiff said to be demanded defendants No. 1 to 3 for partition of plaint schedule properties, which they postponed and alienated items No. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties to defendants No. 4 and 5 under registered sale deeds (Ex.B1, Ex.B2) on 05.07.1997. Then plaintiff issued notice to the defendants, for which they gave reply notice. Exs.A2 to A6 are legal notice and exchange of the notices between plaintiff and defendants. Then plaintiff filed suit for partition basing on the Ex.A1 Will.
5. The defendants No. 4 and 5 have filed separate written statement resisting the claim of plaintiff stating that said Mr. Muralidhararao is an idiot and he has no worldly knowledge and he had no testamentary capacity to execute Ex.A1. They submit that Mr. Muralidhararao never suffered from Asthma and never stayed with the plaintiff who looked after by defendants No. 1 to 3 and he also died in the house of defendant No. 1. They pleaded that Ex.A1 Will is a forged one. They prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues:
1. Whether the Will dated 11.02.1995 said to have been executed by Mr. Muralidhararao is true and valid and whether Mr. Muralidhararao had testamentary capacity?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties and for possession as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?
4. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of the necessary part
AI
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
