Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Bangaru Venkata Ramana Seshavataram – Appellant
Versus
Grandhi Bangaram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants 1 to 3 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 16.04.2008, in O.S. No.06 of 2000 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 4 to 8 in the said Suit.
2. The plaintiffs filed a Suit to pass a preliminary decree in their favour for partition of items 1 to 3 in plaint A schedule properties into 2 equal halves and to allot one such share in item No.1 to the 3rd plaintiff, one such share in item No.2 to the 2nd plaintiff and one such share in item No.3 to the 1st plaintiff as per the bequests made by their father Bangaru Viswanadham under a registered will dated 17.03.1994, for partition of plaint B schedule properties into 2 equal halves and to allot one such share to them jointly, to order rendition of accounts in respect of the income derived from plaint A and B schedule properties from 11.09.1999 till the date of delivery of their shares, to ascertain future profits on a separate application and for
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud in the execution of a will, and the plaintiffs successfully proved the validity of the will dated 17.03.1994.
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.
![Boomathi [Died] VS Murugesan [Died] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 934](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
The validity of a Will can be upheld despite procedural omissions if supported by sufficient evidence, and a partition suit may be dismissed if barred by limitation.
The mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the Will, by itself, would not be a factor to hold that the Will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the fir....
Point of law : Section 68 only envisages the examination of one among the two attestors to establish the execution of Will.
Proof of execution of Will – In cases where document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of attesting witnesses has been called f....
The court upheld the trial Court's decree for partition, ruling that the alleged Will was not proved, affirming the properties as joint family assets.
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
