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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 2365

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Subramani.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. V. Babu.

Headnote:

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

JUDGMENT :

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







































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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