Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
P.M. Kamaraj and Anr. – Plaintiff
Versus
V. Rangam and Ors. – Defendants
T.O.S.No.20 of 2006 (O.P No.187 of 2005)
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Testamentary Original Suit - Grant of Letters of Administration - The deceased executed a Will on 03.03.1997, duly registered, bequeathing properties to his three sons and daughters - The Will was contested by other legal heirs alleging it was fabricated - The court found the Will to be valid and genuine based on the evidence of attesting witnesses and the absence of suspicious circumstances. (Paras 2, 10, 15)
(B) Testamentary Capacity - The testator executed the Will while in a sound and disposing state of mind, out of his own free will, and the execution was duly attested. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The deceased P.Muthu Nadar executed a Will bequeathing his properties to his three sons and daughters, which was contested by other heirs claiming it was fabricated. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the evidence of the attesting witnesses and found no suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, thus granting Letters of Administration to the plaintiffs. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Will executed by P.Muthu Nadar was true, genuine, and valid, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to Letters of Administration. (Para 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Will was validly executed and attested, and the plaintiffs were entitled to Letters of Administration as the evidence supported the genuineness of the Will. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: The Testamentary Original Suit is decreed as prayed for, issuing Letters of Administration in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
(A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.)
The Testamentary Original Suit is filed for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the last Will and Testament of the deceased P.Muthu Nadar.
2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:
The deceased P.Muthu Nadar executed a Will on 03.03.1997 in the presence of the witnesses, whose names appear at the foot there of and the same was duly registered as Document No.23 of 1997 Book No.III, with SRO.Adyar. The said P.Muthu Nadar died on 06.08.2003 leaving behind his three sons viz., 1) P.M.Kumarasamy @ Raja (3rd defendant herein) 2) P.M.Kamaraj, and 3) M.Velkumar, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 herein and his four daughters viz., 1) K.Vimala 2) G.Janaki, 3) S.Devaki and 4) D.Uma, the respondents 1 to 4 in O.P as his only legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Since the 1st son of late P.Muthu Nadar predeceased him leaving his wife and the only daughter as his heirs, the 5th and 6th respondents herein have also been added as parties in the above O.P. The above said P.Muthu Nadar had bequeathed his House property bearing Door No.1, 2nd Street, Kamaraj Avenue, Adyar, Chennai-20 and the superstructure with lease-hold right on the land at Door No.5, Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 and the land at Palavakkam and other properties to his three surviving sons, the petitioners herein allotting the portion marked A and coloured Red in the sketch of the Will to the said P.M.Kumarasamy @ Raja, (3rd defendant), the portion marked B and coloured Blue in the sketch of the Will to P.M.Kamaraj (1st plaintiff) and the portion marked 'C' and coloured yellow in the sketch of the Will to the 2nd plaintiff, M.Velkumar absolutely. Hence the said three sons are provided and benefited by the said Will of P.Muthu Nadar.
2.01. The deceased P.Muthu Nadar was the absolute owner of the house property bearing Door No.1, 2nd Street, Kamaraj Avenue, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 having purchased the same from one Pannalal under a Deed of sale registered as document No.1394/1965 with S.R.O.Saidapet, The said deceased P.Muthu Nadar was the absolute owner of vacant land measuring 24 cents comprised in Survey No.107/2A, Palavakkam Village, Chennai-600 041 having purchased the ame from one Jamuruth Beevi under a Deed of Sale registered as document No.1655 of 1972 with S.R.O, Saidapet, Moreover, the said deceased P.Muthu Badar being a tenant in respect of the land measuring 1600 sq.ft. situated at Door No.5, Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 under one T.S.Ranganatha Metha and having put up superstructure thereon became entitled to purchase the said land under Sec.9 of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Further, the deceased P.Muthu Nadar bequeathed his half share in the property situated at Door No.93, 2nd Street, Kamaraj Avenue, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 to his three sons, the petitioners/plaintiffs 1&2 and the 3rd defendant herein after disposal of the second appeal on the file of High Court of Madras.
2.02. The deceased P.Muthu Nadar bequeathed his share of the property situated at Pallathur of Kayamozhi Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District to his three sons who are the petitioners/plaintiffs 1 & 2 and 3rd defendant herein. After distributing his immovable properties to his three sons in the above said manner, he has bequeathed seven Insurance Policies each to the value of Rs.10,000/- to his 1st daughter-in-law Mrs.Rangam and his three sons viz., Kumarasamy @ Raja, Kamaraj & Velkumar and three daughters viz., Janaki, Devaki and Uma. The deceased Muthu Nadar who has deposited Rs.10,000/- for one year in Norton Super Benefit Fund, Chennai-28 in the name of his grand daughter Gayathri, the 6th respondent/2nd defendant herein, has redeposited in UCO Bank in Sastri Nagar Branch entitling her to receive the same on her attaining the age of majority. Further, the deceased has deposited a sum of Rs.22,000/- in Industrial Development Bank, Cafe Baroda I.D.B.I Tower, Mumbai in two application receipts
The court upheld the validity of a Will executed by the deceased, affirming that it was made in a sound state of mind and properly attested, thus granting Letters of Administration to the plaintiffs.
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 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 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 affirmed the validity of the Will executed by the deceased, ruling that it was genuine and not executed under undue influence, thus granting Letters of Administration to the plaintiff.
The court emphasized that the validity of a registered Will must be presumed if the opposing party admits its execution, shifting the burden to challenge its validity onto the contesting heirs.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genuineness of the Will due to suspicious circumstances and inadequate evidence, leading to the dismissal of the Testamentary Original Suit.
The burden of proving the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and in the presence of suspicious circumstances, the propounder must satisfactorily explain them to the court.
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 court held the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a will to dispel suspicions surrounding its execution; failure to establish genuineness results in dismissal.
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
