Back
Madras High Court
RAMAMURTI,KRISHNASWAMY REDDY
Irudayam Ammal - Appellant
Versus
Salayath Mary - Respondent
Decided On : 08/01/1972
WILL - PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION - REGISTRATION - EXECUTION - ADVERSE INFERENCE - SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE - WILL - GENUINENESS - TESTATOR'S MENTAL CAPACITY - DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE - EQUITABLE - RATIONAL - NO EVIDENCE OF MENTAL IMPAIRMENT - WILL UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the daughter of Susai Udayar, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of one-fourth share in certain properties left by her father. The defendants, Susai Udayar's son and his wife, contested the suit, claiming that Susai Udayar had left a registered Will bequeathing the properties to them. The plaintiff denied the existence of the Will and claimed that the properties were acquired with the income from her father's properties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim in respect of some properties and dismissed it for others. The defendants appealed the decision, and the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal challenging the dismissal of her claim for the remaining properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Will dated 12-3-1941 (registration copy Ex. B-4) is true, valid, and was executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind. 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved that the other properties in the A schedule and the properties in the entire B schedule were acquired by Arokiam with the income from the properties of Susai Udayar.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendants had failed to satisfactorily establish the truth and genuineness of the Will. It noted that the plaintiff was in possession of the original Will and had not produced it, while the defendants had produced a certified registration copy. The court also considered the evidence of the attesting witnesses, who were deceased, and the testimony of a witness who was present at the time of the execution of the Will. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the other properties in the A schedule and the properties in the entire B schedule were acquired by Arokiam with the income from the properties of Susai Udayar.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It also dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court applied the maxim "Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem," which presumes adverse inferences against a party who withholds evidence, and drew such inferences against the plaintiff for failing to produce the original Will and for suppressing evidence (!) .
The court found that the original Will was in the possession of the first defendant, who did not produce it, and the plaintiff, who also did not produce the original, was considered a tool in collusion with the person in possession, leading to the adverse inference (!) (!) .
The certified copy of the Will (Ex. B-4) was admissible and sufficient to prove the Will's execution, especially given the circumstances of its registration and the absence of the original due to alleged theft or concealment by the defendant in possession (!) .
The evidence of the deceased attesting witnesses was accepted, and their absence was accounted for, with the court emphasizing that the evidence from witnesses who were familiar with the execution was credible and sufficient (!) .
The court held that registration of the Will, coupled with other legal presumptions, supported the conclusion that the Will was validly executed by a person in a sound disposing mind (!) .
The conduct of the parties, including the delay in filing the suit and the behavior of the plaintiff and her family, was considered indicative of the likelihood that the Will was genuine, as they did not assert their rights earlier and showed no inclination to challenge the Will during the lifetime of the testator or his immediate heirs (!) (!) .
The court found that the testator was in a sound mental state at the time of executing the Will, based on the rationality of its contents and the absence of evidence suggesting mental impairment (!) .
The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs, including the recovery of court fees paid by the defendant if applicable (!) (!) .
The cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, as it lacked substance, and the court confirmed that the plaintiff failed to prove that the assets in question were acquired through the testator’s income (!) .
Overall, the decision emphasized that the evidence and circumstances supported the validity of the Will and that the adverse inferences drawn from the failure to produce the original were justified given the circumstances of concealment and the behavior of the parties involved (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning and final judgment concerning the validity of the Will and the related property claims.
RAMAMURTI, J. :- Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram decreeing, in favour of the plaintiff, partition and separate possession of one-fourth share in respect of certain items of properties set forth in Schedule A appended to the plaint as well as the claim for mesne profits from 12-3-1956. The plaintiff's suit in respect of other items in the A Schedule and in respect of the entire B Schedule properties as well as the plaintiff's claim for relief of accounting prior to 12-3-1956 have been dismissed. There is no cross-appeal in respect of the portion of the plaintiff's claim disallowed.
2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Susai Udayar; defendants 5 and 6 are the sisters of the plaintiff, being the other daughters of Susai Udayar aforesaid. The first defendant Irudayammal is the widow of one Arokia Udayar, the son of Susai Udayar. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and Arokia Udayar aforesaid. The parties belong to Keeranur village in Ramanathapuram District and the father, Susai Udayar, left for Burma several decades ago and practically settled down there till the moment of his death in Burma in 1941. His wife the mother of the plaintiff, also died in 1942. During the time he settled down in Burma, Susai Udayar acquired vast extents of paddy fields in Thamin Ahank Kwin, Dedaye Township in Burma. Susai Udayar also acquired lands and houses in his native village.
3. It is not in dispute that Susai Udayar, his wife and his three daughters settled down in Burma; indeed the three daughters were born, bred up in Burma and they were also married in Burma. The husbands of the fifth and the sixth defendants (the other two daughters of Susai Udayar) were staying in Burma, looking after the lands acquired by Susai Udayar, in Burma. Arokia Udayar, the son of Susai Udayar, permanently stayed in India, in the native village and used to visit Burma now and then. It was the husband of the fifth defendant (Irudayam) who was in main charge of the management of the properties in Burma and was completely assisting Susai Udayar. During the period of the war and when the conditions in Burma were chaotic between 1941 to 1946, it was the husband of the fifth defendant who was staying in Burma and managing the properties after the death of Susai Udayar. In 1947-48, with considerable difficulty, the fifth defendant and her husband and the plaintiff returned back to India. Atfer return from Burma, the plaintiff was staying with her brother's wife, the first defendant. As the plaintiff had no child she was deeply attached to the fourth defendant. Therasammal, treating her as her own daughter. Misunderstandings appear to have arisen between the plaintiff and the first defendant consequent upon certain marriage proposal of the third defendant, the other daughter of the first defendant.
The plaintiff issued a notice Ex. A-18 dated 12-3-1956, claiming a one-fourth share in the properties of Susai Udayar, in particular, the properties in India, to which the first defendant sent a reply, Ex. A-20 dated 29-3-1956, in which the first defendant claimed that Susai Udayar had left behind a registered Will under which Susai Udayar had given substantial landed properties in Burma to the three daughters. 60 acres to the plaintiff, 60 acres to the sixth defendant and 35 acres to the fifth defendant and that the rest of the properties of Susai Udayar i.e., the properties in Burma as well as those in India, were bequeathed to Susai Udayar's son, Arokiam and that after the death of Susai Udayar in 1941, Arokiam and his three sisters were enjoying the properties as per the provisions of Will separately and in their own right and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the properties in Burma. The plaintiff instituted the suit in forma pauperis in July 1956, claiming partition and separate possession of her one-fourth share in all the p
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
