Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Varunni S/o. Thattil Rappai – Appellant
Versus
Rosy D/o. Thattil Rappai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition suit based on 1994 will versus prior will and adverse possession. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
The defendant in O.S. No. 378 of 1998 on the files of the Sub Court, Thrissur, is the appellant herein.
2. A suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property by the respondents herein. The plaintiffs and the defendant in the said suit are the children of deceased Rappai and Mariam. The plaint schedule property belonged to the deceased Mariam, and the plaintiffs instituted the suit relying on a Will executed by Mariam in the year 1994. It is stated that the mother had earlier filed O.S. No. 148 of 1995 against the defendant for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, and she died on 29.01.1998. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant is in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the Will executed in 1994 is the last Will of the mother, but the defendant is not willing to hand over possession of the property to them.
3. The appellant herein contends that he is a disabled person and that his mother was residing with him. According to him, the house and the plaint schedule property were set apart in his favour as per a registered W
Single attesting witness's testimony proving both attestations suffices for Will proof under Sections 63(c), Succession Act and 68, Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a Will must be proved in accordance with the law, and in its absence, the rights of the parties are governed by the applicable....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and proof of a Will should adhere to the mandate prescribed under the Evidence Act, and examination of attesting witnesses i....
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 burden to prove the validity of a Will lies with the propounder, and failure to meet statutory requirements results in its invalidation.
The court established that a Will must comply with statutory requirements to be considered valid, emphasizing the importance of proper attestation and execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proof of execution of a registered Will requires the examination of attesting witnesses in court or their summoning under Order 16 Rule 10....
The will executed by the deceased was duly validated under the Indian Succession Act and established the respondents' title, whereas the appellant failed to prove his entitlement due to inadequate ch....
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
