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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1393

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.S. KARNAN, J.
S. Rajeswari & Others - Appellants
Versus
N. Rasayee - Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 547 of 2012
Decided On : 15-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :J. Anandavalli, G.R. Swaminathan, Advocates
For the Respondent:G. Thalaimutharasu, Advocate, R5

The joint Will executed by both the husband and wife cannot be unilaterally cancelled by one person, especially after the death of her husband.

Headnote:

WILL - Property Dispute - [Ryotwari Patta issued by Settlement Tahsildar, Will dated 23.09.1991, Will Cancellation Deed dated 11.12.1992, Sale Deed dated 03.01.1994, Sale Deed dated 28.01.2008, Sale Deed dated 29.05.1973] - The joint Will executed by both the husband and wife cannot be cancelled by one person alone, especially after the death of her husband. The Settlement Tahsildar has passed orders for issuance of Ryotwari patta in the name of Nallianna Gounder, and the non-appearance of the first defendant to dispute the Will and the fact that the defendants 1 to 5 have not chosen to give evidence is a point in favor of the plaintiffs.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property belonged to Nallianna Gounder and was bequeathed to them by a joint Will executed by Nallianna Gounder and the first defendant. The first defendant unilaterally cancelled the joint Will after the death of Nallianna Gounder and sold the property to the sixth defendant. The plaintiffs sought a declaration and possession of the suit property.

Finding of the Court:

The joint Will executed by both the husband and wife cannot be unilaterally cancelled by one person, especially after the death of her husband. The Settlement Tahsildar has passed orders for issuance of Ryotwari patta in the name of Nallianna Gounder, and the non-appearance of the first defendant to dispute the Will and the fact that the defendants 1 to 5 have not chosen to give evidence is a point in favor of the plaintiffs.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession as prayed? 3. What other relief are the plaintiffs entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi: The joint Will executed by both the husband and wife cannot be unilaterally cancelled by one person, especially after the death of her husband. The Settlement Tahsildar has passed orders for issuance of Ryotwari patta in the name of Nallianna Gounder, and the non-appearance of the first defendant to dispute the Will and the fact that the defendants 1 to 5 have not chosen to give evidence is a point in favor of the plaintiffs.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, and the Principal District Munsif, Karur, are set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiffs have submitted that the suit property is the self acquired property of one Nallianna Goundar S/o Selambana Goundar of Manavadi Village, Karur Taluk. The said Nallianna Goundar is none other than the husband of the first defendant and the father of the defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the issues of the fifth defendant. The plaintiffs had submitted that the said Nallianna Goundar acquired an extent of Ac.1.12 1/2 cents in S.F. No. 705, an extent of Ac.0.48 3/4 cents in S.F. No. 706 and an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in S.F. No. 707 of Manavadi Village by means of registered sale deeds with which they are not concerned in this suit. Considering his long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and other properties referred above, patta has also been issued in the name of the said Nallianna Goundar. The true copies of Chitta and Adangal extracts for Fasli 1393 standing in the name of Nallia Goundar in respect of the suit property are herewith produced as Plaintiffs' document Nos.1 and 2 and the same may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. The plaintiffs had submitted that the first defendant had acquired an extent of Ac.1.12 1/2 cents in S.F. No. 705, an extent of Ac.0.48 3/4 cents in S.F. No. 706 and an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in S.F. No. 707 of Manavadi Village through her parents. She did not acquire any other properties except the above said properties either from her parents or through any other means.

2. The plaintiffs had further submitted that the above said Nallianna Goundar and the first defendant, being husband and wife, had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. In such course of their possession and enjoyment, the said Nallianna Goundar and the first defendant at their own volition, without any compulsion or coercion had executed a Registered Will and Testament in respect of their respective properties in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein on 23.09.1991. The above said Will was duly executed, attested by witnesses and registered according to law. It was the last Will of the said Nallianna Gounder. The registration copy of the original Will dated 23.09.1991 is herewith produced as Plaintiffs' document No.3 and the same may be read as part land parcel of this plaint. The plaintiffs had submitted that the said Nallianna Goundar died on 02.12.1991. The original death extract of Nallianna Goundar is herewith produced as Plaintiffs' document No.4 and the same may be read as part and parcel of this plaint. The plaintiffs had submitted that after the demise of Nallianna Goundar, the Will executed by him on 23.09.1991 came into effect and as per the recitals of the said Will, the properties belonging to the said Nallianna Goundar, which forms part of the Will, devolved upon the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein and they have become absolute owners of the properties belonging to the Testator Nallianna Goundar which includes the suit property. When the facts are so, the first defendant who is yet another Testator in the Will dated 23.09.1991 has cancelled the Will dated 23.09.1991 by way of Will Cancellation Deed dated 11.12.1992 in entirety. It is pertinent to note that the first defendant is not entitled to cancel the Will in respect of the properties belonging to the said Nallianna Goundar. Even then, she with ulterior motive, without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, has cancelled the Will. The plaintiffs had submitted that at best the first defendant is at liberty to cancel the Will in respect of her properties alone and not the properties of her husband Nallianna Goundar.

3. The plaintiffs had submitted that the first defendant, not stopping with that, in order to defeat and defraud the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, with her money and muscle power, appears to have submitted her name in the UDR patta in place of Nallianna Goundar and along with her issues namely, R





































































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 Back to top