Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Chandra Yugandhar – Appellant
Versus
Maalampati Annapurna – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 342 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
WILL - PROOF - GENUINENESS - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - NECESSARY PARTIES - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and future mesne profits, claiming ownership of certain land based on a registered Will (Ex.A1) executed by her mother, Chandra Seetamma, in her favor. The defendant, Chandra Seetamma's son, contested the suit, claiming ownership of the same land based on another Will (Ex.B2) executed by Chandra Seetamma in his favor. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Ex.A1 was duly executed and was the last Will and testament of Chandra Seetamma, while Ex.B2 was not genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving the due execution of Ex.A1 by examining the attesting witnesses and removing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The Court also held that the suit was maintainable even though other sons and daughters of Chandra Seetamma were not impleaded as party defendants, as they did not claim any interest in the property in dispute. Further, the Court held that the plaintiff had proved her title to the property on the strength of her own case and was entitled to a declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had proved the due execution of Ex.A1 and whether it was the last Will and testament of Chandra Seetamma? 2. Whether the suit was maintainable without impleading other sons and daughters of Chandra Seetamma as party defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff had proved her title to the property on the strength of her own case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving the due execution of Ex.A1 by examining the attesting witnesses and removing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The Court relied on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Others, Guru Dutt v. Durga Devi, and Ajit Kumar v. Mukunda Lal, which held that the onus of proving a Will is on the profounder and that in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator, as required by law, are sufficient to discharge the onus. 2. The suit was maintainable even though other sons and daughters of Chandra Seetamma were not impleaded as party defendants, as they did not claim any interest in the property in dispute. The Court relied on the principle that in a suit for declaration of title, 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 on the part of the defendant. 3. The plaintiff had proved her title to the property on the strength of her own case by proving the due execution of Ex.A1 and by establishing that it was acted upon after the death of Chandra Seetamma.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law was involved and that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below were based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and did not brook interference under Sec. 100 CPC.
JUDGMENT
1. The above second appeal was filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree, dtd. 5/7/2022 passed in A.S.No.154 of 2018 on the file of learned VI District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the judgment and decree, dtd. 9/7/2018 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.
2. The parties to the appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.130 of 2012.
3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.130 of 2012 for declaration of title, for recovery of possession and future mesne profits etc.
4. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that plaintiff and defendant are children of Chandra Seetamma; that Chandra Seetamma owned Ac.4-00 of land in R.S.No.981/1 and Ac.0-69 cents in R.S.No.982/3 of Pedakallepalli Village in Mopidevi; that Chandra Seetamma executed registered Will, dtd. 19/10/2009 in sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.981/1 and Ac.00-69 cents in R.S.No.982/3 totalling to Ac.1-69 cents to the plaintiff and Ac.3-00 in R.S.No.981/1 to another daughter by name M. Kalpana; that Chandra Seetamma died on 10/8/2012 and hence, the Will executed by Chandra Seetamma came into operation; that plaintiff applied to Tahsildar, Mopidevi, through AP online for pattadar passbook; that defendant sent copy of caveat petition against the plaintiff before learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and that plaintiff immediately issued reply notice for which defendant issued rejoinder with false averments. Hence, eventually filed the suit for the relief as stated supra.
5. The defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that Will, dtd. 19/10/2009 is not valid and is not attested properly; that Chandra Seetamma cancelled the Will, dtd. 19/10/2009 on 5/11/2011 and executed an acknowledgment to that effect; that Chandra Seetamma executed another Will, dtd. 12/12/2011 bequeathing Ac.1- 65 cents out of Ac.4-65 cents in R.S.No.981/1 and 982/3 of Pedakallepalli Village in favour of the defendant and the remaining Ac.3-00 of land in R.S.No.981/1 to Kalpana and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
6. Plaintiff also filed another suit in O.S.No. 1 of 2016 for recovery of Rs.60,000.00 with interest on the ground that the defendant trespassed into the fields, cut and took away paddy crop. The defendant denied the allegations in the plaint and pleaded that pursuant to the death of their mother, by virtue of Will, dtd. 12/12/2011, he came into possession of the property and cultivated the paddy crop. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the said suit.
7. Basing on the pleadings in O.S.No.130 of 2012, trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that she is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the Will dtd. 19/10/2009 is last Will and testament executed by Chandra Seethamma in favour of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the Will dtd. 12/12/2011 is last Will and testament executed by Chandra Seethamma in favour of the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
6. To what relief?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits?
8. Both the suits were clubbed together, and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.130 of 2012.
9. On behalf of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and got examined PWs2 to 4. PWs 2 and 3 are attestors of Ex.A1/Will. The evidence of PW4 was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as DW1 and got examined DWs2 to 5 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
10. The trial Court by judgment, dtd. 9/7/2018 decreed suit O.S.No.130 of 2012 with costs declaring that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule p
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 burden of proof for a Will lies with the propounder, requiring clear evidence against suspicious circumstances surrounding its creation.
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.
A registered Will does not automatically guarantee validity; the propounder must prove its due execution and satisfy the court's conscience by removing all suspicious circumstances. Mere registration....
The court emphasized the propounder's burden to prove wills amidst suspicious circumstances, noting that failure to authenticate a will nullifies claims of ownership based on that instrument.
The burden to disprove a Will lies with contesting parties after the propounder meets initial proof requirements; mere non-registration or signature comparison is insufficient to establish suspicious....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Will in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and th....
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
