IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
M. Vairamudi & Others - Appellant
Versus
R. Sundararajan Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 1199 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011 & C.M.P. No. 18063 of 2021
Decided On : 25-04-2022
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, Section 63, Section 70 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiffs proved the last Will of the deceased, while the defendants failed to prove the validity of the earlier Will. The court held that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the earlier Will and the evidence presented supported the validity of the last Will. The court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the lower court's judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute where the plaintiffs claimed their father was treated as an adopted son by the deceased and was bequeathed the suit property through an unregistered Will. The defendants claimed the deceased executed a registered Will in their favor. Both lower courts found in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs proved the last Will of the deceased, while the defendants failed to prove the validity of the earlier Will. The court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the lower court's judgments.
Issues: Validity of Wills, Burden of Proof, Suspicious Circumstances
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the earlier Will and the evidence presented supported the validity of the last Will. The burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the validity of the earlier Will, which they failed to do.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's judgments were upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 20.06.2011 passed in A.S. No.46 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, upholding the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2010 passed in O.S. No.520 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.)
1. The defendants in O.S.No.520 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai, who failed in both the Courts below have filed the present second appeal. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. The suit property as described in the plaint is a land and superstructure in T.S.No.190/8 and T.S.No.190/13 of Thiruvannamalai town with specific measurements and boundaries as stated in the plaint schedule.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell is as follows:
The suit property is the self acquired property of Jayalakshmi Ammal who is the plaintiffs' father's paternal aunt. Jayalakshmi Ammal, though married, was living separately for the past 40 years. She had properties at Gudiyatam also. The plaintiffs' father Ramalingam was taking care of his paternal aunt Jayalakshmi Ammal after the death of her father and she nominated him as her legal heir in all her bank accounts. The defendants who are the sons of Jayalakshmi's brother Mugaleewaran did not bother to visit Jayalakshmi Ammal and take care of her. Inspite of that Jayalakshmi Ammal had executed a Will bequeathing her two houses at Gudiyattam in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs' father was treated by Jayalakshmi Ammal as her adopted son. While so, Jayalakshmi Ammal executed a Will dated 23.05.2003 (Ex.A1) bequeathing the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs' father Ramalingam. During the last week of May 2003, Jayalakshmi Ammal went to Gudiyattam and died on 31.05.2003 under mysterious circumstances. Jayalakshmi Ammal before leaving for Gudiyattam informed the plaintiffs that the defendants took her to the Sub Registrar Office at Thiruvannamalai on 21.05.2003 and obtained her marks and signatures on blank papers stating that it is a consent letter for obtaining loan over some of the properties other than the suit properties which were given by her to the defendants' father. Jayalakshmi Ammal became suspicious subsequently and wanted to verify the same and left for Gudiyattam on the evening of 23.05.2003. Before leaving, she handed over the Will dated 23.05.2003 to the mother of the plaintiffs and asked her to keep it safe. In fact, the plaintiffs' father was not aware of the execution of the Will dated 23.05.2003 by Jayalakshmi Ammal in his favour. On hearing the news of the death of Jayalakshmi Ammal on 31.05.2003, the plaintiffs went to Gudiyattam along with their parents and the plaintiffs' father performed all the ceremonies as her adopted son. On the next day they came to know about the registered Will dated 21.05.2003 allegedly executed by Jayalakshmi Ammal bequeathing the suit property in favour of the defendants. It seems Jayalakshmi Ammal had informed about the Will dated 23.05.2003 (Ex.A1) in favour of her brother Ramalingam to the defendants. The defendants on knowing this manhandled her, as a result of which, she fell down and sustained a fracture on 24.05.2003. Thereafter, she became unconscious and ultimately died on 31.05.2003. Though the plaintiffs and their father wanted to inform the police on 01.06.2003, they did not do so as it was too late for them to inform the police. The Will (Ex.A1) was the last Will of late Jayalakshmi Ammal and was executed when she was in
The burden of proof lies with the propounder of the Will to prove its validity, and in the absence of proof of the earlier Will's validity, the last Will prevails.
A Will's validity can be proved by one attesting witness's credible testimony despite absence of others, and appellate courts must respect trial findings unless proven erroneous.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the will and the entitlement of the first defendant to the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
The court ruled that mere suspicion cannot invalidate a duly executed Will, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on those contesting its validity.
A registered Will does not automatically guarantee validity; the propounder must prove its due execution and satisfy the court's conscience by removing all suspicious circumstances. Mere registration....
In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove title on the strength of his/her own case and he/she cannot rely upon the laches or weaknesses....
The classification of properties as joint family or self-acquired depends on the presence of a joint family nucleus; discrepancies in the execution of the Will sow doubt on its validity due to mental....
The mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the Will, by itself, would not be a factor to hold that the Will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the fir....
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.