Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Periyakkal – Appellant
Versus
Jothi Ponnarasu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2022 in A.S.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Manapparai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2012 in O.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manapparai.
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court namely Sub Court, Manapparai dated 10.01.2022. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manapparai. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit was filed for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The appellant claims that she is the daughter born through the first wife of her father Pethan. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 are the children born through the second wife of Pethan. The first respondent is the son of the second respondent/first defendant. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.
2. In the suit, the first defendant alone has filed his written statement. The second defendant, who is the son of the firs
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the propounder of a Will to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, failing which the Will may be deemed fabricat....
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....
The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.
A registered Will has presumptive validity unless evidence demonstrates its invalidity, and execution shortly before death does not necessarily indicate suspicious circumstances.
The court reaffirmed that a will must be proven free of suspicious circumstances, particularly when it excludes dependents with known health issues, rendering the presented will invalid.
Sections 68 of Indian Evidence Act reads as proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
The burden of proof for the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and a will may still be valid even if it lacks a signature on every page, provided it meets statutory requirements.
The validity of a Will can be upheld despite procedural omissions if supported by sufficient evidence, and a partition suit may be dismissed if barred by limitation.
Secondary evidence – Neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done ....
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
