Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Prof. Nirmala Joseph, W/o. Late Mathews Abraham – Appellant
Versus
Leelu Titus, D/o. Late P.G. Joseh, (W/o. Late KV Titus) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
The appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant before the Sub Court, Chengannur in A.S. No.20 of 2018, by which the judgment and decree in O.S. No.85 of 2014 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, was reversed.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, claiming1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property on the ground that the alleged Will, stated to be executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of the sole defendant, is fabricated. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had forged Will No.173/2013, and the signature of the mother in the Will is fabricated and forged. At the time of execution of the Will, their mother had no testamentary capacity to dispose the property. The execution of the Will was thus denied completely. One of the extenuating circumstances, which, according to the plaintiffs, would test the validity of the Will, is regarding the age of the mother, who was 93 years old at the time of execution of the Will, and that she was suffering from various ailments. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, co
A Will's validity requires proof of its execution; mere allegations of forgery or suspicious circumstances are insufficient without substantial evidence to counter the probative force of the register....
Proving the execution of a Will does not establish its validity if it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The beneficiary must satisfy the Court that there are no suspicious circumstances or e....
The propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution; failure to do so results in rejection of the Will.
The burden to disprove a Will lies with contesting parties after the propounder meets initial proof requirements; mere non-registration or signature comparison is insufficient to establish suspicious....
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the validity ....
The court emphasized that the burden of proving the validity of a will lies with the propounder, who must dispel any suspicions surrounding its execution, in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian ....
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
The First Appellate Court cannot raise issues without pleadings and mere disinheritance does not constitute suspicious circumstances; challengers must specify grounds for suspicion to shift the burde....
The propounder of a Will bears the burden to prove its validity and must dispel any suspicious circumstances regarding the execution and the testator's mental capacity.
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
