Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Jeevanandam – Appellant
Versus
G. Babu Rao(deceased) & Others – Respondents
Testamentary Original Suit No. 14 of 2016 in (O.P. No. 592 of 1990)
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Probate - Testamentary Original Suit - Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 - Section 222, Section 276 - The court granted probate of the last Will and Testament dated 04.08.1988 of late V.Parvathi Bai to the plaintiff, limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.
Fact of the Case:
The adopted son of the testatrix filed a Testamentary Original suit for the grant of Probate. The suit property belonged to the testatrix, and the plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the validity of the Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was duly executed by the deceased testatrix in a sound state of mind and was proved in accordance with Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court decreed the suit by granting probate of the Will to the plaintiff, limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.
Issues: The issues framed for trial were whether the Will executed by V.Parvathi Bai was true and genuine, and to what other reliefs the parties were entitled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Will was executed in a manner known to law and was proved in accordance with Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No suspicion was shrouded upon the Will, and the court answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The suit in T.O.S.No.14 of 2016 was decreed by granting probate of the last Will and Testament of late V.Parvathi Bai to the plaintiff, limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff was also directed to provide a true and fair inventory and render true and fair accounts of the properties and credits of the estate of the testatrix within six months and one year, respectively, from the date of decree. No order was made as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Testamentary Original Suit filed filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, prayed that for granting of Probate.)
1. This Testamentary Original suit is filed by the adopted son of the testatrix for the grant of Probate.
2. The averments of the Plaint in brief:
The defendants 3 to 6 are the wife and three daughters of the deceased 1st defendant and they are the grand children of the sister of the testatrix. The husband of the testatrix pre-deceased her.
2.1. The property belongs to one Parvathi Bai who is the testatrix herein. Parvathi Bai had executed her last registered Will and testament in respect of the property on 04.08.1988. Parvathi Bai died on 07.05.1989. The property is a self acquired property of the said Parvathi Bai. In the said Will, the testatrix appointed the plaintiff as the executor of the Will and hence, he is entitled to apply for the Probate of the Will. The 2nd defendant admits the execution of the Will and its contents. Original Will is furnished by the 2nd defendant in the Court and the attesting witness Thulasidass identified the said Will. The second defendant sails along with the plaintiff. The defendants 3 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant and they did not file any separate written statement. However the first defendant had filed his written statement while he was alive.
3. The Written statement of the first defendant in brief:
The 1st defendant filed a written statement by stating that the Will is not a valid one and he denies the execution of the Will. So the 1st defendant filed an Application in A.No.2465 of 2004 to recall the Original Petition in O.P.No.592 of 1990 filed by the plaintiff under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 and the same was restored and subsequently transferred as T.O.S.No.14 of 2016.
3.1. The suit property comprises of ground floor, first floor and an outhouse. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of the deceased. As per the Will, the first floor of the building was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff. The ground floor consists of two portions and out of which each defendants is given with a portion. The out-house is bequeathed to the person who would light the funeral pyre of the testatrix and the respective portion has been given with the right of way.
3.2. The plaintiff had originally filed Original Petition in O.P.No.592 of 1990 in respect of the Will and the same was allowed on 13.02.1990 and after coming to know this, the 1st defendant filed an Application in A.No.2465 of 2004 in order to revoke the same and the same was recalled and the Original Petition was restored and subsequently transferred as Testamentary Original Suit in TOS.14 of 2016; the 1st defendant had taken over the possession of the property and he is in the enjoyment of the same; the plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.3423 of 2004 for partition on the basis of the Will and the same was dismissed; in the partition deed, he has stated that the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share and the defendants are entitled of 1/6th share each; but no where in the Will, the said share is mentioned as stated by the plaintiff; the Will is without any schedule of property and hence, it is invalid; the plaintiff has marked the Certified copy of the Will and not the original one.
4. The Written statement of the second defendant in brief:
The second defendant filed a written statement by stating that it is true that the suit property belonged to the testatrix and she executed a Will dated 04.08.1988 in the presence of witnesses Thulasidass and Mahalingam.
5. Upon considering the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial in the suit:
1. Whether the Will dated 07.05.1987 executed by V.Parvathi Bai Ammal is true and genuine? 2.To what other reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled?”
6. During the course of the trial, on the side o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and execution of a Will in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
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 court ruled that circumstantial evidence raised doubt about the Will's validity, and the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove that the testatrix executed it while in a sound and disposing sta....
The court confirmed the validity of a Will executed in a sound mind, emphasizing the challenger’s burden to prove invalidity, which was not met in this case.
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 court emphasized that a Will must be validly executed and free of suspicious circumstances, placing the burden on the propounder to dispel doubts about its authenticity.
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 court affirmed that a registered Will is presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, and mere disinheritance does not imply undue influence.
The court upheld the validity of the testamentary Will, emphasizing the importance of testamentary capacity despite the testator’s age and the burden of proof on the challenger.
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
