Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
K. Manjula - Appellant
Versus
P.K. Rajasekaran - Respondent
T.O.S.No.15 of 2013 in (O.P.No.357 of 2008)
Decided on : 14-03-2025
JUDGMENT :
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
Originally, OP.No.357 of 2008 has been filed praying for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of Last Will executed by deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy in favour of his daughter/Legatee under the Will of the deceased. On filing caveat, OP.357 of 2008 was converted into TOS.No.15 of 2013 by order of the Court dated 03.04.2012.
2.The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in TOS is as follows:
a).The plaintiff-K.Manjula is the daughter of deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy. The said Krishnamurthy died on 06.03.2007 at Old No.35/2, New No.16, M.I.G.Flats, 12th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 leaving behind his sons, the defendants 1 and 2 herein and one Balusamy and his daughter, the plaintiff herein as his legal heirs. The wife of deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy pre-deceased to him.
b)While the deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy was alive, he executed his Last Will and Testament on 03.11.1994 in the presence of two witnesses bequeathing the property described in the schedule of the Will in favour of his daughter, the plaintiff herein for her life time absolutely and during her life time, the property will not be alienated and in case, after her demise, the property will devolve absolutely on plaintiff's daughter Ms.C.Janani. The testator's father and mother pre-deceased him and the petitioner has impleaded all the next kin or other persons interested as party/respondents and there is no other next of kin or other persons interested to be impeaded. Since, no executor was appointed in the Will, the plaintiff in O.P.No.357 of 2008 filed for grant of Letters of Administration under the Will.
3. The averments of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant is as follows:
a) The defendants are the sons of deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy. The defendant's father had no intention at any point of time to bequeath the property in favour of the plaintiff. If really their father had intention to execute such a Will to bequeath his property in favour of plaintiff, he would have consulted his sons since there was always a good relationship between the father and sons.
(b) The plaintiff was already given a property in Periyar Nagar and the property bequeathed under the alleged Will was intended to be given only to the 2nd defendant and he has ample evidence to prove the case. The plaintiff took advantage of 2nd defendant's absence, immediately after the death of their father, managed to take away the keys of the property and let it out to third party and thereafter, now she claims that the property belongs to her by virtue of alleged Will.
(c) The alleged Will dated executed by their deceased father is a forged one created by the plaintiff with an intention to grab the property from legitimate persons taking advantage of the absence of the male members in the City of Chennai. The deceased P.A.Krishnamurthy never used Tamil as his language of communication, as such the Will said to have been drafted by him is a fabricated one. The property was not purchased by the father of the plaintiff alone and it was purchased out of the joint exertion of the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff and other brothers cannot deny the legitimate share of this defendant in the property.
(d) The 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.1267 of 2008 before the XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for partition of the properties, which also includes the property claimed in the Will and the same is pending at the second appeal stage. The family had two properties, one in the name of the mother and other in the name of the father. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant have taken half share in the property stood in the name of the mother and the other brother Mr.P.K.Balusamy had executed a release deed long back after taking money value towards his share. It was the desire of the parents to give the property at Ashok Nagar only to this defendant and not to anyone else. The deceased father, in his last letter wished him to come back to Chennai to join him in his last letter and when
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 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 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.
A registered Will is presumed genuine unless serious doubts about its execution or the testatrix's capacity are proven.
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 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.
(1) When a Will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between plaintiff and defendant.(2) Genuineness of Will must be proved by proving intention of testator to make....
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 affirmed the validity of a Will executed by the deceased, granting Letters of Administration to the plaintiff based on unchallenged evidence.
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
