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

1965 Supreme(Ker) 105

M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Elizabeth – Appellant
Versus
Susanna – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for partition. The suit properties belonged to Thresia who died on February 14,1960. The 1st plaintiff is her daughter. She had another daughter, Madam - the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5 - who died on February 12,1947. Thresia had a son, Andrew, who predeceased he on August 9,1951, leaving behind his widow, the 1st defendant and children defendants 2 to 6. Thresia had executed and registered a will, Ext. D4, dated March 1, 1948, devising all her properties to Andrew; but it is conceded that no probate of the will or letters of administration with the will annexed have been taken. Plaintiffs claim that as Andrew predeceased Thresia, the legacy in his favour lapsed and therefore they succeed Thresia as on her intestacy. The defendants relied on the will and contended further that Mariam and the 1st plaintiff have been paid Streedhanam and therefore the plaintiffs are excluded from succession to Thresia's estate. The Court below dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

2. The will, Ext. D4, cannot be acted upon to find title to any property because of the injunction in S.213 of the Indian Succession Act. "S. 213 will be a bar to an



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