Back
P. B. BALAJI
V. Kalaivani – Appellant
Versus
M. R. Elangovan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The Testamentary Original Suit arises out of Original Petition in OP. No.1178 of 2018 filed by the plaintiffs as petitioners, seeking grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of late, M.R.Ramachandran, dated 02.01.2004. The respondents in the said OP having filed Caveat, the OP was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit and the respondents have been cited as the defendants in the Testamentary Original Suit.
2. Alleging that late M.R.Ramachandran died intestate, the suit in OS No.435 of 2018 before IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai was filed by the defendants in TOS, as plaintiffs therein, seeking partition and separate possession. In furtherance of orders of this Court, the said suit for partition was transferred to this Court and tried along with the above Testamentary Original Suit in Tr.C.S. No.14 of 2023.
3. The averments set out in the Testamentary Original Suit viz., the petition/plaint are as follows.
The plaintiffs are the daughter, son and daughter respectively of late M.R.Ramachandran and Vallabaisundari, their mother pre-deceased their father, having died on 01.03.1998. The father died on 21.04.2016, leaving a registered Will dated 02.01
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 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 court upheld the validity of a registered Will, ruling that the burden of proof for allegations of forgery lies with the defendants, which they failed to meet.
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.
Proof of execution of Will – There can be no interference to Will which stands proved unequivocally.
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 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 court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
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
