Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Dr. K.C. Rajaraman - Plaintiff
Vs.
K. Meikandan and Ors. - Defendants
T.O.S. No. 6 of 2015
Decided On : 05-01-2017
Grant of Letters of Administration - Testamentary Original Suit - Succession Act, 1925, Section 63 - Suspicious circumstances - Will being produced by beneficiary will not render Will untrue - Testamentary capacity of the testator has been clearly established while executing the Will and the alleged suspicious circumstance attached to the Will has not been established.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was originally filed as a petition for grant of letters of administration, which was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit due to the entry of caveators. The plaintiff sought grant of letters of administration based on a Will executed by the deceased testator. The defendants contested the genuineness and validity of the Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was proved in accordance with the law, and the plaintiff was entitled to grant of letters of administration. The court established the testamentary capacity of the testator and dismissed the alleged suspicious circumstances attached to the Will.
Issues: The issues included the execution and validity of the Will, the testamentary capacity of the deceased, entitlement of the plaintiff to letters of administration, and other relief for the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of attesting witnesses to establish the execution and attestation of the Will, and considered the conduct of the parties, including the lack of objection from other legal heirs and the delay in producing the Will. The court emphasized the need for disinterested and satisfactory evidence to prove the testator's sound and disposing state of mind.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed, and letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff for the properties bequeathed in the Will. The plaintiff was directed to administer the estate and execute a security bond, with the court ordering the plaintiff to render true and correct accounts once a year.
The suit is originally filed as a petition for grant of letters of administration. As the respondents 3, 4 and 6 entered as caveators, the petition has been converted as Testamentary Original Suit.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:
The testator Chakrapani Achari, father of the plaintiff herein, executed a Will in the presence of the witnesses on 05.05.1982 and registered the same on 07.05.1982. The petitioner found the Will recently and immediately filed an application and sought grant of letters of administration.
3. The case of the defendants 1 to 3 is as follows:
The said Chakrapani Achari had five sons and one daughter and he has treated all his children equally and he never had an idea to bequeath his estate to any of the sons, excluding others. Therefore, the defendants denied the genuineness and validity of the Will. They also denied the testamentary capacity of Chakrapani Achari to execute the Will on 05.05.1982. According to the defendants, Chakrapani Achari was not hale and healthy to understand the terms of the Will at the relevant time. There is no necessity for him to execute the Will in favour of one son excluding all other legal heirs. Further, the delay in coming to the Court after 25 years also is one of the suspicious circumstances attached to the Will. Further, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants in some blank papers on the representation that their signatures are required to obtain change in EB service connection. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues for trial and adjudication:-
(i) Whether the execution of alleged Will dated 05.05.1982 by the deceased Chakrapani Achari is true and valid and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances?
(ii) Whether the deceased Chakrapani Achari had sound testamentary capacity on the date of alleged execution of Will dated 05.05.1982 ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration as prayed for ?
(iv) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, second defendant was examined as DW.1 and no documents were produced on their side. The details of the documents are hereunder:-
Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:
S.No.
Exhibits
Date
Description of documents
1.
P.1
05.05.1982
Original Will of Mr. K. Chakrapani Achari
2.
P.2
--
Photo copy of death certificate of Mr. K. Chakrapani Achari
3.
P.3
--
Photo copy of Legal Heir certificate of Mr. K. Chakrapani Achari
4.
P.4
29.04.2013
Original affidavit of assets filed in O.P. No. 664 of 2013
5.
P.5 Series (7 Nos.)
--
Original consent affidavits of the respondents, viz., Uma Maheswari, C. Pazhamalai, K. Meikandan, C.K. Vijayakumar, K. Muralitharan, K. Banumathi, Dr. C. Ganesan O.P. No. 664 of 2013
6.
P.6
--
Copy of vakalath
7.
P.7 Series (10 Nos.)
--
Photos
8.
P.8 Series (2 Nos.)
--
Photos
9.
P.9
--
Photo
10.
P.10
--
Photo
Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants:
NIL
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:
PW.1. - Dr. K.C. Rajaramanan
PW.2. - T. Arumugam
Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants
DW.1 - C.K. Vijayakumar
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants and perused the records.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Will is a registered one and Ex.P1 is the Original Will of Chakrapani. It was registered on 07.05.1982. The evidence of PW.2, one of the attesting witnesses, clearly proves not only the execution, but also the attestation. There w
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
