Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Bernadette verdes, S/o. Late Sebastian Xavier Verdes – Appellant
Versus
Lucy Vaz Nee Verdes, W/o. Sri Felics Vaz – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri. George Philip, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. B.N. Prakash, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 and Sri. Fakirappa S. Shettar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Third defendant is the only appellant now, as defendants No.1 and 2 have transposed themselves as respondents in this appeal.
3. Third defendant is challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.17897/2005 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohal, Bangalore.
4. Operative portion of the Judgment and Decree reads as under:
The suit of the plaintiff decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her ½ th share in the suit schedule property.
Draw/partitioning decree accordingly.
5. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under;
5.1 Sri. Sebastian was owner of the suit property. Plaintiff and defendants are his children. He had a wife by name Jane Vardes. There was a will executed by Sri. Sebastian in the year 1990 and later on Sri. Sebastian and his wife together executed a Will on 03.04.1993 in respect of the suit property other movable prope
The court ruled that the validity of a Will under the Indian Succession Act requires strict compliance with execution standards, and civil courts lack jurisdiction over intestate succession matters.
A registered Will has presumptive validity unless evidence demonstrates its invalidity, and execution shortly before death does not necessarily indicate suspicious circumstances.
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
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 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.
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 burden of proof for the execution of a Will lies with the propounder, who must establish compliance with statutory requirements, including the testimony of attesting witnesses.
(1) Proof of execution of Will – Mere nomenclature of a person in Will as an Identifier is not sufficient to hold that Will was not attested by two witnesses.(2) High Courts should restrain itself fr....
The burden of proof for the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and a will may still be valid even if it lacks a signature on every page, provided it meets statutory requirements.
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
