IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RAJIV SHAKDHER, ABDUL QUDDHOSE, JJ.
D. Vijayalakshmi - Appellant
Vs.
E. Vedagiri - Respondent
O.S.A.No.368 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
Decided On : 27-07-2017
Constitution of India,1950 - Interim stay granted - Oral evidence - Seeking probate - Grant of probate - appeal is preferred against judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge of Court - P.No. was filed by respondent seeking probate of Will executed by deceased - One of legal heirs of deceased - Appellant who was respondent No.2 in O.P.No. objected to grant of probate by lodging a caveat - Respondent is executor under Will executed by deceased is the plaintiff – Held – Court are convinced after having considered documents and oral evidence let in by the parties, the Will Ex.P.2 is genuine and respondent being propounder of Will has discharged his burden of proving the Will and no surrounding suspicious circumstances exist for execution of Will Ex.P.2 - Contention of learned counsel for appellant/defendant Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstance cannot be accepted in light of fact - Relevant and required evidence has been produced on record disproving all the suspicious circumstances - .P.No.1 of 2013 is dismissed
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in T.O.S.No.8 of 2008 granting probate of the Will dated 10.04.1994 executed by the deceased Kuppammal.
2. O.P.No.870 of 1999 was filed by the respondent seeking probate of the Will dated 10.04.1994 executed by the deceased Kuppammal. As one of the legal heirs of the deceased D.Vijayalakshmi, the appellant herein, who was respondent No.2 in O.P.No.870 of 1999 objected to the grant of probate by lodging a caveat, O.P.No.870 of 1999 was converted into T.O.S and came to be numbered as T.O.S No.8 of 2008.
3. The respondent, who is the executor under the Will dated 10.04.1994 executed by the deceased Kuppammal is the plaintiff and the appellant-objector to the grant of probate is the defendant in the suit T.O.S.No.8 of 2008.
4. As seen from the Will dated 10.04.1994, Kuppammal had 6 children. Four of them were sons namely a) A.Viswanathan, b) A.Vedagiri, c) A.Jeevakumar and d) A.Ganesh Kumar and the remaining two were daughters namely, a) S.Susheela and b) D. Vijayalakshmi, the appellant herein. Kuppammal's husband predeceased her on 18.02.1970. Her eldest son Viswanathan predeceased her on 19.11.1993 leaving behind his only son V.Saiprasad as his legal heir and her other daughter S.Susheela also predeceased her leaving behind her two sons namely, a) S.Palani and b) Selva Ganesh and her only daughter c) Ganesh Mahalakshmi as her legal heirs.
5. The relationship of the testatrix Kuppammal with her legal heirs are as follows:
| Sl.No. | Names | Relationship |
| 1. | A. Vedagiri | Son |
| 2. | A. Jeevakumar | Son |
| 3. | A. Ganesha Kumar | Son |
| 4. | D. Vijayalakshmi | Daughter |
| 5. | V. Saiprasad | Grandson |
| 6. | S. Palani | Grandson |
| 7. | S. Selvaganesh | Grandson |
| 8. | Ganesh Mahalakshmi | Grand daughter |
| 9. | V. Manjula | Daughter-in-law and wife of predeceased son E. Viswanathan |
6. The Will of the testatrix Kuppammal states that she is 75 years old and she may not live for many more years and she is executing the Will while she is in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under the Will, the testatrix, Kuppammal has bequeathed her properties in the following manner:
(a)Her absolute property being House and ground bearing Door No.6, Chinnaiya Pillai Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 situated in Block No.109, Survey No.8378, Mambalam Village measuring 3 Grounds and 60 Sq.ft. is bequeathed in favour of
a. Saiprasad - Grandson and son of predeceased son Viswanathan
b. A. Vedagiri - second son,
c. A. Jeevakumar - third son,
d. A. Ganesh Kumar - fourth son.
All four of them have been given equal shares in the property and if any of them wants to sell his share, he has to first inform the other three and only after he receives written consent from them that they have no objection for the sale, he is entitled to sell his share to a third party. The Will also states that the testatrix Kuppammal and her husband have sufficiently provided their daughters with gift items (Seervarisai in Tamil) like Silver, Gold, Cash and others at the time of their marriage and their marriage was also conducted in a grand scale. Despite this, in order to remove the impression that nothing has been provided for her daughters under the Will, the testatrix states that her Grandson V. Saiprasad and her aforementioned three male children will have to give D. Vijayalakshmi Rs.1,50,000/- and the legal heirs of her predeceased daughter Susheela namely, a) S. Palani - Rs.50,000/-, b) S.Selvaganesh - Rs.50,000/- and c) Ganesh Mahalakshmi Rs.50,000/- after the life time of the testatrix.
7. Under the Will dated 10.04.1994, the two attesting witnesses are 1) Mahadevan and 2) Balasundaram. The testatrix Kuppammal has left her thumb impression as proof of execution of her Will.
8. The testatrix Kuppammal died on
Ramesh Verma (D) Thr Lrs. v. Lajesh Saxena (D) BY Lrs., and another
Amaladoss Stephen v. Srimathi. Seethalakshmi Ammal and Others
Josephine and Jerome and others V. S.Santiago and Another
Parimalam and Others v. P.Mohanraj and others
Hemavathy v. Udhavum Karangal rep. by Mr. Vidyasagar
Misri Lal (dead) by LRs. and another v. Smt. Daulati Devi and another
Sushila Bala Saha v. Saraswati Mondal AIR 1991 CAL 166
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.