Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Krishnaveni & Others - Appellants
Versus
R. Vanaja & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos. 1477 & 1478 of 2004, 2162 & 2165 of 2010 & 2289 of 2016 & CMP Nos. 285 & 286 of 2013 & 178 of 2015 & CMP Nos. 13992 & 13993 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010 & CMP No. 11875 of 2016
Decided On : 02-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
S.V. Jayaraman, T. Dhanasekaran, P.M. Duraiswamy, G. Vasudevan, A. Radhakrishnan, C. Kanagaraj, R. Ramesh Kumar Chopra
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper attestation and execution of a Will as per Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act, and the rights of children born out of relationships not sanctioned by law.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code - Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act - Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act - [KEYWORD] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act, Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act] - The court discussed the validity and proving of the Will in accordance with Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized the requirement of attestation by two or more witnesses and the need to prove the execution of the Will. The court also highlighted the limitations on property rights of children born out of relationships not sanctioned by law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple Civil Revision Petitions arising from property disputes between landlords and tenants, and a dispute over the validity and proving of a Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will in question was not proven to be executed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. The court also emphasized the rights of children born out of relationships not sanctioned by law.
Issues: The issues involved the validity and proving of the Will, the rights of children born out of relationships not sanctioned by law, and property disputes between landlords and tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirements of attestation and execution of a Will as per Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. The court also highlighted the rights of children born out of relationships not sanctioned by law.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the court found no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the lower courts.
1. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1477/2004 arises against the order passed in E.A. No. 641/2002 in E.P. No. 143/2001 in R.C.O.P. No. 85/1998 on the file District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1478/2004 arises against the order passed in E.P. No. 143/2001 in RCOP No. 85/1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
2. In both these matters, the landlords are the petitioners and the respondents viz., Umapathy and Samsuddin are tenants. The first respondent in CRP (NPD) No. 1477/2004 is the legal heir of the deceased M. Kandasamy.
3. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2162/2010 arises against the order dated 17.09.2007 passed in I.A. No. 622/2006 in O.S. No. 286/2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
4. C.R.P (NPD) No. 2165/2010 arises against the order dated 22.10.2007 passed in I.A. No. 622/2006 in O.S. No. 286/2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
5. In both these Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners are defendants in the suit and the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased M. Kandasamy, who was the plaintiff in the suit.
6. C.R.P (NPD) No. 2289/2016 arises against the order passed in I.A. No. 478/2015 in O.S. No. 966/2004 on the file of III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The defendants 7 and 8 are the petitioners, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants 2 to 6.
7. Since the dispute is common, at the request of the learned counsel on either side, all the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
6. Heard Mr. P.M. Duraiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP Nos. 1477, 1478/2004 and 2289/2016 and for the respondents in CRP Nos. 2162 and 2165/2010; Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in CRP Nos. 2162 and 2165/2010 and for the first respondent in CRP Nos.1477 and 1478/2004; Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in CRP Nos.1477 and 1478/2004; Mr. C. Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in CRP No. 2289/2016 and Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar Chopra for the impleading peittioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Civil Revision Petitions, filed by the petitioners, are not maintainable and only an appeal is maintainable. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the finding of the Executing Court, with regard to the Will, is erroneous and that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to prove the Will in accordance with Law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court dated 03.08.2010 made in CRP No. 523/2005, wherein, this Court held that as against the order passed in an application, filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, only an appeal is maintainable and not a revision.
8. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Executing Court, taking into consideration the evidence of Attestor, had rightly held that the alleged Will is not a true and genuine and therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Revisions, filed by the Revision Petitioners, are maintainable and there is no necessity for giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal as against the impugned orders.
9. Since the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions cannot be accepted, after a lapse of twelve years, for the reason that the petitioners themselves have filed the Civil Revision Petitions before this court and after a lapse of twelve years, they cannot now contend that they should be given an opportunity to challenge the impugned orders, passed in E.A.
