Back
Chinnappa Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Kailasam Pillai Late A Minor But – Respondent
Key Points: - The court found that an implied revocation in a later will leads to the revocation of an earlier will, even without an express clause of revocation (!) (!) . - The court held that if the terms of the later will show an intention to dispose of property differently, the earlier document is revoked, even if the later will does not cover the whole subject matter (!) (!) . - The court determined that cumulative legacies in both wills would exceed the estate's value, making it impossible to admit both documents to probate (!) . - The court allowed the appeal and directed Letters of Administration to issue with the second will only, dated 2-1-14, annexed to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants (!) (!) . - The genuineness of both testamentary papers was established based on evidence that they were in the handwriting of the testator (!) (!) . - The court rejected the argument that inferential intention to revoke could be derived solely from surrounding circumstances apart from the documents themselves (!) . - The dispositions regarding the flower garden and the balance of property were found to be clearly inconsistent between the two wills (!) . - The court concluded that the testator's intention was that only the later will should be operative and the prior will should be revoked (!) .
1. In this appeal two alleged testamentary papers of one Venkatachalam Pillai, deceased, who died on 26-8-14 are in question. They are dated respectively 24-1-13 and 2-1-14 and are marked as Exs. Al and A. The latter is propounded by a minor Kailasam Pillai, son of Venkatachelam by a concubine of his, Velliammai, by name. This, Kailasam Pillai applied to the District Court of South Arcot for leave to prove A and for the issue to him Letters of Administration with this will annexed. Al, the alleged earlier will, is propounded by respondents No. 3 and 4 who are two of the three sons of Thillainayagam Pillai brother of the testator, who was adopted into another family. The earned Disrict Judge found for the genuineness of both these papers, A and A1. and admitted them both to probate. He also found that the earlier will was not revoked by the later. Letters of Administration were granted jointly to the widow of deceased (Respondent No. 2) and respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Three questions are raised on this appeal.
1. The genuineness of the wills.
2. The revocation of the earlier by the later.
3. Inferential intention to revoke.
3. As to the first point, Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyer for
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
