SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Ker) 499

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
Acho Dominic – Appellant
Versus
Xavier – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Will Ext. B13 is presumed to be duly executed and attested under Section 90 of the Evidence Act due to its age and proper custody, and this presumption extends to testamentary capacity in this case [15000049710006][15000049710011][15000049710012]. - The lower appellate court erred in requiring probate under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act for an Indian Christian; the amendment making probate unnecessary is applied prospectively to pending appeals, allowing relief based on the Will [15000049710012] (!) (!) [15000049710013]. - As the defendant proved the Will and probate is not required due to the amendment, the suit for partition is decreed in terms of the Will, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to partition [15000049710013] (!) .

How to determine whether a Will can be acted upon when the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applies to execution and attestation?

What is the effect of the amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act (and related Kerala provision) on probate requirement for Indian Christian testators in pending appeals?

What is the court's conclusion regarding the partition right of plaintiffs given the Will left by Acho and the subsequent legal developments?


Judgment :-

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The legal representatives of the sole defendant in a suit for partition are the appellants in this case. The plaintiffs, the children of the deceased defendant's sister Thresiamma filed a suit for partition of the properties held by her father Acho. A notice was issued demanding partition and separate possession of the properties. The defendant objected to that demand by a reply notice stating that the said Acho had executed a Will on 15.6.1921. In terms of the said Will the plaintiffs' mother and thereby the plaintiffs did not have any right to seek partition. This dispute led to the suit. The defendants set up the defence based on the Will which is Ext. B13 as referred to in the trial Court judgment. The trial court found that the Will was never proved as enjoined by law and S.69 of the Evidence Act by examining any of the attesting witnesses. So the will was not accepted and acted upon by the trial court. The trial court held that the parties were entitled for partition of the properties left by the said Acho in equal shares.

2. The parties belong to erstwhile Cochin State. They are Christians. The properties sought to be partitioned is within the











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top