Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
Rajesh M. Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Indumathi (died) & Another - Respondent
TOS. No. 25 of 2011
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Indian Succession Act - Testamentary Original Suit - Sections 232, 276 - The court dismissed the suit for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favor of the Plaintiff, as the Will dated 22.01.1994 was not proved by oral and documentary evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a Testamentary Original Suit under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favor of the Plaintiff, as the sole legatee under the Will of the deceased. The Defendants contested the suit, claiming that the Will was not genuine and the suit suffered from suppression and mala fides.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove the Will dated 22.01.1994 by oral and documentary evidence. As per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Plaintiff did not call any attesting witness to prove the execution of the Will. Therefore, the court dismissed the Testamentary Original Suit, ruling against the Plaintiff.
Issues: (1) Whether the Will of Chimanlal, dated 22.01.1994 is genuine? (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain Letters of Administration pursuant to the Will, dated 22.01.1994?
Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff failed to prove the Will by examining the attesting witnesses and providing sufficient evidence. As a result, the court ruled against the Plaintiff, concluding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to obtain Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.
Final Decision: The Testamentary Original Suit was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for the relief as stated therein.)
1. This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favour of the Plaintiff, as the sole legatee under the Will of the deceased.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the son of late Manilal B.Mehta. The 1st Defendant is the wife of late Chimanlal, who died on 24.01.1994, at the premises at No.167, Mint Street, Chennai-79, where he was ordinarily residing. The immovable property, which is a vacant land, measuring 1 acre 17 cents, comprised in S.No.1471/15B3 situated in Lakshmipuram, Madhavaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, is the self acquired property of the said deceased. The deceased had executed a Will dated 22.01.1994, in the presence of the witnesses. The father of the Plaintiff is the friend of the deceased Testator, who treated the Plaintiff as his son and the Plaintiff has been taking care of the deceased Testator for 10 years. The 1st Defendant, who is the wife of the deceased, deserted him within six months of the marriage. The younger brother of the deceased Testator predeceased him. The Plaintiff is the sole legatee/ beneficiary of the said Will. The Plaintiff was of the view that the since the property is situated outside the limits of Chennai, the Will need not be probated. Thereafter, he was advised that since the Will was executed at Chennai, the Will should be probated and hence, the suit has been filed with a delay of 15 years. The amount of assets, which is likely come into the hands of the Plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,25,01,000/- and the net amount of the said assets, after deducing all the items, which the Plaintiff, is by law allowed to deduct, is only of the value of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The Plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and the credits of the said deceased Testator, in any way concerning his Will, by paying first his debts and then, the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in the Court, within six months from the date of grant of Probate, with the Will annexed to the Plaintiff and also to render a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. No application has been made to any District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for probate or any Will of the said deceased or Letters of Administration with or without the Will annexed to his properties and credits. Hence, this Testamentary Original Suit suit has been filed for the grant of Letters of Administration.
3. The case of the Defendants, in a nutshell, as set out in the written statement, filed by the 2nd Defendant is that the 1st Defendant is his predecessor in title and she was the absolute owner of the land, measuring 1 acre and 17 cents, comprised in S.No.1471/15B3, Madhavaram Village, Tiruvallur District. The Testator Chimanlal died on 24.01.1994 two days after the execution of the alleged Will dated 22.01.1994, which would create a suspicion about the execution of the Will. The Petition for probate was filed after a period of more than 15 years and hence, it is barred by limitation. As per the legal heirship certificate, dated 14.04.2004, the 1st Defendant (since deceased) was the sole legal heir of the deceased Testator Chimanlal. The 1st Defendant has also filed an affidavit, stating that the Will is not genuine. In 2006, the 1st Defendant had sold the Schedule property to the 2nd Defendant and he is the absolute owner of the property and is in possession. The Plaintiff had executed a settlement deed, dated 17.04.20008 in favour of his wife and it is a concocted document. The Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of the attesting witnesses. The delay has not been
The importance of proving a Will by oral and documentary evidence, as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The validity of a will must be proved by clear evidence, including testimony from attesting witnesses; failure to do so, alongside suspicious circumstances, results in dismissal of testamentary claim....
The failure to meet the statutory requirements for proving a Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act leads to its invalidity, resulting in intestate succession applying instead.
The propounder must prove the existence and loss of the original Will to obtain Letters of Administration; reliance on a photocopy alone is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the authenticity and validity of a Will, and the significance of a party's actions and acknowledgments in determining the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the genuineness and validity of a Will under the Indian Succession Act, and the entitlement of the executor to the grant of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of statutory requirements for proving the authenticity of a Will, including the mental capacity of the testator and the testimony o....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the validity of a will, which was not met due to discrepancies and suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the genuineness and validity of the Will, meeting the legal requirements, and the impact of Near Relatives refraining from contesting the suit.
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
