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

1977 Supreme(Mad) 192

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO, S.SURYAMURTHY
R. Sivagnanam – Appellant
Versus
P. K. Sadananda Mudaliar – Respondent


Advocates:
G. Krishnan, for Appellant.
V.R. Gopalan, for Respondent.

Ramaprasada Rao, J.-One Thangavelu Mudaliar died leaving behind him a will duly executed by him in proper form. He died in August, 1956, leaving behind him his daughter Krishnaveni Ammal. Krishnaveni Ammal had two children-Sadanandam, a son, and Saraswathi Ammal, a daughter. It is common ground that Sadanandam was named as the executor under the will and he sought for probate in the usual course and in the common form. Originally the proceedings came up before Ganapatia Pillai, J., who, after having been’ satisfied that a grant could be made in the common form, was about to issue it, when he was interdicted by caveat proceedings. Krishnaveni Ammal filed a caveat as an interested person, and thereafter the proceedings were converted into a suit, T.O.S. No. 2 of 1957. On a verification of the record, we find that in the course of the proceedings two witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 was Sadanandam, the propounder of the will, and P.W. 2 was Swaminatha Achari, one of the attestors to the will, who also filed, along with the application for the issuance of the probate, the supporting affidavit go as to enable the propounder to obtain a probate after proof of the will in the common form.





















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