Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Pitchika Balaji Narasimham – Appellant
Versus
Daivam Revathi Kumari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAOAPPEAL, J.
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 13.04.2017 in O.S.No.15 of 2012 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2012 for a preliminary decree against the defendant to affect the partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff with good and bad qualities and mesne profits.
3. Referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
Plaintiff and Defendant are members of a Hindu undivided family, children of late Pitchika Sambasivarao and Kota Veerabhadramma. Both parents died intestate, leaving behind the Plaintiff and Defendant as their legal heirs. The plaintiff's father acquired properties through a registered part
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of a Will, and properties acquired in a wife's name are presumed to benefit her unless proven otherwise.
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 emphasized the necessity of proving a Will through independent witnesses and upheld the validity of a release deed executed by the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of her claims.
Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act is applicable to Wills – Registration, by itself, in all cases, is not a proof of execution.
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.
Will - In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to examine the attestors of this Will.
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
