Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2745
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
P. Mookaiyan
Versus
V. Jayaraman & Others
O.S.A.No129 of 2001 & S.A.No.676 of 2003
Decided on: 29-07-2009
For the Appellant :P. Jayaraman, S.C., for Azhagu Shivanandan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, S.V. Jayaraman, S.C., P. Anbarasan, R2 to R4, B. Srinivasan, R5, G. Rajasekaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the propounder to prove the execution of the Will and establish the testamentary capacity of the testator, as well as the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before accepting the Will as genuine.
Headnote:
Probate - Validity of Will - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c) and Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 - The court considered the genuineness of the Will and explanation to all suspicious circumstances surrounding thereto. The Will was attested by two witnesses and the propounder proved its execution. The court emphasized the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before accepting the Will as genuine. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the testamentary capacity of the testator and the execution of the Will. The court concluded that the Will was genuine and valid.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the validity of a Will executed by Krishnaveni Ammal. The plaintiff sought letters of administration, which was granted by the trial court. The fifth defendant, a stranger to the probate proceeding, challenged the genuineness of the Will, alleging that Krishnaveni Ammal was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was genuine and valid, as it was attested by two witnesses and the propounder proved its execution. The court rejected the appellant's claim that Krishnaveni Ammal was not in a sound state of mind, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support this claim. The court held that the Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances and confirmed the grant of letters of administration to the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Will and the testamentary capacity of the testator. The court also considered the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the genuineness of the Will and the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before accepting the Will as genuine.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which require the propounder to prove the execution of the Will and establish the testamentary capacity of the testator. The court highlighted the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before accepting the Will as genuine.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the grant of letters of administration to the plaintiff and upholding the validity of the Will.
(P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.)
O.S.A. No.129/2001 is filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2001 made in T.O.S.No.23 of 1999.
2. Second Appeal No.676/2003 is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.118/2001 dated 14.02.2003 by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. In both the appeals, as the points involved and the parties are one and the same, we dispose of the same by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in the suits.
4. The appellant in both the appeals is the plaintiff in the O.S.No.7032/96 and 5th defendant in TOS.No.23 of 1999. First respondent in OSANo.129/02 is the plaintiff in TOS.No.23/1999. Respondents 2 to 4 in O.S.A.No.129/01 are defendants 1 to 3 in TOS.No.23 of 1999. The fifth respondent in O.S.A 129/02 and the respondent in S.A.No.676/03 is the defendant in OS.No.7032/96 and fourth defendant in TOS.No.23/1999. O.S.A.No.129 of 2001
5. One Krishnaveni Ammal executed a Will at Madras on 110. 1987. She was residing at No.42, Narasier Street, Old Washermenpet, Madras-21. Her husband Ponnusamy died on 15.03.1988. The said Krishnaveni Ammal died intestate on 010. 1988. There is no executor in the Will. The plaintiff Jayaraman as well as defendants 1 to 3 are the beneficiaries under the Will. The said three defendants are sisters of the plaintiff-Jayaraman and all of them are sisters and brother of Krishnaveni Ammal and these three sisters have given consent to the probate. The said Krishnaveni Ammal and her husband jointly sold the eastern side portion of the property at No.34, New Magazine Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai on 26.08.1987 to the fifth defendant-Mookaiyan, the appellant in the present appeals. The fourth defendant-Sakina Beevi also purchased 3/4 of the share of the suit property from the three sisters of Krishnaveni Ammal/defendants 1 to 3. The fifth defendant/appellant herein also alleged that he purchased the same property by sale deed dated 112. 1989 from the legal heirs of Ponnuswamy. Subsequently, the plaintiff-Jayaraman also sold his 1/4 share in the suit property to the fourth defendant on 12.01.1995. The plaintiff filed O.P.No.124/1994 before this Court, in which, probate was granted. After probate of the Will, the said plaintiff sold 1/4 of his share in the suit property to the fourth defendant. Thereafter, the fifth defendant/appellant filed a petition to revoke the probate and subsequently, probate was revoked. In these circumstances, O.P. was filed seeking for Letters of Administration, which has now been converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.23 of 1999. Defendants 1 to 3 have given consent affidavits to the letters of administration and the fourth defendant has also given her no objection. Only, the fifth defendant/appellant has disputed the genuineness of the Will. On pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the last Will and testament dated 110. 1987 is true, valid and binding?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get letters of administration?
3. To what relief? "
After considering oral and documentary evidence, the learned single Judge decreed the suit and also issued letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that order, the fifth defendant/ appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the said Krishnaveni Ammal has not executed any Will and the said Will is not true and genuine document. During the relevant point of time, the said Krishnaveni Ammal was not in disposing state of mind and she took treatment for mental ailments. Therefore, it is highly impossible that mentally ill Krishnaveni Ammal could have executed the said Will and the learned single Judge has not considered the relevant materials and evidence and hence, the order passed by the learned single Judge has to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Will is genuine one and also
