Back
M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM
Rathnamma – Appellant
Versus
Omana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in RSA 375 of 2021, and defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in RSA 1292 of 2016. These appeals are filed against the Preliminary decree and final decree in the suit. RSA No. 1292/2016 is filed against the preliminary decree and RSA No. 375/2021 is filed against the final decree.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the plaint Schedule property having an extent of 5 cents of land belonging to one Sadanandhan who died on 24.12.2002. Plaintiffs are 4 in numbers. The 1st plaintiff is the wife, 2nd & 3rd plaintiffs are the children and the 4th plaintiff is the mother of said Sadanandhan.
3. As per the plaint allegations, after deserting the plaintiffs, Sadanandhan started residing with the 1st defendant and out of the relationship with 1st defendant, the 2nd and 3rd defendants were born. The plaintiffs claim is that the plaint schedule property is liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 by alloting 1/6th share each.
4. The defendants opposed the suit for partition, contending, inter alia, that the plaint schedule property is not available for partition as Sadanandhan
The court affirmed that the execution of a Will must comply with statutory requirements, particularly the necessity for attestation by witnesses who observe the testator's signature.
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.
The court upheld the validity of a Will executed under the Indian Succession Act, emphasizing the discretion of the Trial Court in evaluating evidence and the necessity for parties to cooperate in le....
The burden to prove the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, and failure to meet statutory requirements results in its invalidation.
The appellate court allowed a remand for further evidence to prove the execution of documents, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights under the Evidence Act.
A Will can be validated by the testimony of one attesting witness if it meets the statutory requirements, even if the other witness is unavailable or does not support the execution.
Section 71 of Act 1872 has no application in a case where one attesting witness who alone had been summoned fails to prove execution of Will.
The burden to prove the execution of a Will and the free will of the testator lies on the propounder. The propounder must establish attestation and remove suspicious circumstances affecting the genui....
(1) Normally, registration of Will shall not be used as proof of execution of Will.(2) Proof of execution of Will – When evidence of attesting witness is deficient to meet requirements under Section ....
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
