Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Annapoorani – Appellant
Versus
K.S. Kanagarajan (Died) – Respondent
S.A. No. 790 of 2006, M.P. No. 1 of 2006
Decided On : 23-01-2024
WILL - Hindu Succession Act, Indian Succession Act, Civil Procedure Code - Sections 100, 63(c), 68 - The court discussed the validity of a will executed by Sengottaian shortly before his death, analyzing the requirements under the Indian Succession Act regarding execution and attestation. It emphasized the need for the propounder of the will to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The court found that the will was executed in compliance with legal provisions, and the lower appellate court's acceptance of the will as genuine was upheld, influencing the decision to dismiss the appeal for partition of the estate.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, daughters of Sengottaian, filed a suit for partition of his estate after he died intestate. The 2nd defendant claimed a will executed by Sengottaian shortly before his death, bequeathing the estate to him and his mother, excluding the daughters. The trial court disbelieved the will, while the appellate court accepted it as genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the will was duly executed and dispelled the suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The evidence presented by the attestors of the will was deemed credible, leading to the conclusion that the will was valid and the properties were not available for partition.
Issues: 1. Whether the will was duly executed and the propounder dispelled the suspicious circumstances surrounding it. 2. Whether the findings of the appellate court were based on proper legal grounds, especially regarding the additional written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution of the will met the statutory requirements under the Indian Succession Act and that the propounder successfully dispelled the alleged suspicious circumstances. The mere fact that the testator died shortly after executing the will did not inherently render it invalid.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate court's decision that the will was valid and the properties were not subject to partition.
JUDGMENT :
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2005 made in A.S. No. 29 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 made in O.S. No. 690 of 2000 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode.
1. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2005 in A.S. No. 29 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 made in O.S. No. 690 of 2000 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode. Respondents 2 to 5 herein are the defendants 2 to 5 and the respondents 6 to 8 are impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts in the plaint are as follows: The Plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant are the daughters and the 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant and her late husband Sengottaian. Sengottaian died intestate on 10.03.2000 at Chithode, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 to succeed his estate. The defendants 4 and 5 are the tenants in the portions of the suit properties.
4. According to the plaintiffs, the 2 items of the suit properties are separate and self acquired properties of the said Sengottian. Pursuant to his death, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 being the natural heirs are each entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties as per the Hindu Succession Act. As the demand of the plaintiffs to partition the properties and allot two shares to them was not fruitful, they issued a legal notice on 10.04.2000 demanding for partition, but however, the 2nd defendant issued a reply notice dated 15.04.2000 with false claims and hence the suit is filed for partition and separate possession.
5. Further according to the plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant in his reply has stated that prior to the death of Sengottaian, he had executed the will in his favour on 09.03.2000 bequeathing both the items of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have alleged that Sengottaian could not have executed the will on 09.03.2000 with free will and volition, without coercion, threat and undue influence in a sound disposing stage of mind. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs any will executed just a day prior to death bequeathing the entire properties to the 2nd defendant excluding the daughters must be unnatural and suspicious one.
6. Brief facts in the written statement: The 1st defendant filed the written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and according to 1st defendant her husband died on 10.03.2000 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as legal heirs and are each entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties. Further she had issued a lawyers notice on 19.04.2000 to the defendants 2, 4 and 5 demanding partition and for payment of her share of rights.
7. Controverting the suit, the 2nd defendant has filed a written statement. The 2nd defendant admitted that the suit properties are separate and self-acquired properties of his father Sengottaian. While his father was in sound disposing state of mind, out of his own free will and volition and without any coercion or undue influence had executed the registered will on 09.03.2000 bequeathing his properties in favour of his wife, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.
8. According to the 2nd defendant, after the death of Sengottaian, as per the will, the property comprising a godown and a room was allotted to the 1st defendant for her own use and occupation and further godown had been leased out to the 5th defendant and the rents are paid to the 1st defendant for her livelihood and further the 1st defendant is residing in the room allotted to her by the testator. In respect of construction of toilet, the 1st defendant picked up a quarrel and l
The judgment establishes that a will executed shortly before a testator's death can be valid if it meets the statutory requirements and the propounder successfully dispels any suspicious circumstance....
The court reaffirmed that joint family properties cannot be unilaterally declared separate through a Will, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances regarding its execution.
A registered Will has presumptive validity unless evidence demonstrates its invalidity, and execution shortly before death does not necessarily indicate suspicious circumstances.
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 executed by a testator in sound mind is upheld, establishing self-acquisition of property over claims of joint family ownership.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of wills must be proved in the manner known to law, and failure to do so may result in the wills being disbelieved by the court.
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
