Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
K. Balasubramani - Appellant
Versus
P. Sengalai - Respondent
T.O.S. No. 12 of 2019, C.S. No. 33 of 2020
Decided On : 14-02-2025
The legal document pertains to a civil property dispute involving the validity of a will and the right to partition property among heirs. The court examined whether the will executed by the deceased, S.T. Kathirvel Nadar, was validly proved according to legal standards, specifically under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 69, which requires attestation by at least two witnesses and proper execution procedures.
The court found that the will was not sufficiently proved due to a lack of proper attestation and the absence of the witnesses' examination, which is essential to establish the validity of a will. Additionally, suspicions regarding the circumstances of the will's execution, such as the health of the testator and the delay in filing the claim, contributed to the court's conclusion that the will was not genuine.
Furthermore, evidence indicated that the testator was suffering from health issues, and there was no medical documentation to confirm his mental capacity at the time of the will's execution. The court also noted discrepancies in signatures and the absence of details about the attesting witnesses, which further undermined the authenticity of the will.
As a result, the court held that the deceased's estate should be divided equally among his legal heirs, as no valid will had been proved. The court granted a preliminary decree for partition accordingly and dismissed the testamentary suit seeking probate of the will.
In summary: - The will was not proved valid due to procedural deficiencies and suspicious circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The absence of medical records and proof of sound mental capacity further invalidated the will (!) (!) . - The estate was ordered to be partitioned equally among the legal heirs, with no probate granted (!) (!) . - The suit for probate was dismissed, and a preliminary decree for partition was issued (!) .
This decision emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with legal requirements for executing a valid will and the necessity of clear evidence to establish its authenticity.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of suit relationships (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and property history (Para 4) |
| 3. defendants' counterclaims (Para 5) |
| 4. issues presented (Para 6) |
| 5. plaintiffs' arguments regarding will (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. defendants' defense and allegations (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's examination of will's validity (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. proof requirements for wills (Para 18 , 20) |
| 9. determination of will's validity and plaintiffs' claims (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. final orders and conclusions (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The Testamentary Original Suit and Civil Suit have been filed seeking for the reliefs as prayed therein.
2. The plaintiffs in C.S are the defendants in TOS and the 1st defendant in CS is the Plaintiff in TOS. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank stated in the TOS.
3. Since both the cases are interlinked each other, in the plaint filed in TOS who are the defendants in CS have reiterated the averments made in the Written Statement filed in CS. In the Written Statement filed in TOS, the defendants who are the plaintiffs in CS have reiterated the averments in the Plaint in CS.
4. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint in TOS is as follows:
a. The Land and then tiled building bearing door No:18, Singaragarden 3rd Lane, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-600 021 measuring 651 square feet absolutely belongs to father of the plaintiff late S.T.Kathirvel Nadar, he having got the same vide registered Partition deed dated 27-8-1963 entered between his brothers namely Arumugha Nadar, Manicka Nadar, and Kathirvel Nadar, which was duly registered as Document No: 3412 of 1963 in the office of the sub-registrar of Madras-Chengelpet.
b. The said S.T.Kathirvel Nadar has two sons namely the Petitioner herein and the seventh Respondent herein and six daughters namely, (i) K. Balasubramani (ii) K. Mohanakumar, (iii) P. Sengalai, (iv) S. Maniammal, (v) T. Jayalakshmi, (vi) S. Bakkiyalakshmi, (vii) G. Vijayalakshmi, (viii) Jothiammal (Deceased) who died on 12-11-2017. The said S.T. Kathirvel Nadar passed away on 8-11-1990 leaving behind two sons and six daughters named above as his heirs and legal representatives. The Petitioner herein state that their mother Mrs. K. Rajeswari also passed away on the same day i.e., 8-11-1990.
c. After the demise of the father of the Petitioner herein and his brother namely the 7th Respondent herein alone have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. The beneficiaries of the Will ie., the children of the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent herein namely the Respondents 8 to 12 are also residing in the Schedule property along with the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent herein. All of a sudden, the petitioner and the 7th Respondent herein have received a legal notice dated 5-10-2017 from the Respondents 1 to 6 herein claiming undivided 6/8th share in the Schedule property followed by Court summons in O.S.No:1152 of 2018 on the file of XIXth Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai Claiming 6/8th share in the Schedule property for the hearing date 5-4-2018.
d. The petitioner and his brother had accidental met R.Vasudevan in the month of March 2018 and informed him during the course of their conversation that their sisters have filed Partition suit against them with respect to the schedule property. At that time, R. Vasudevan informed that S.T.Kathirvel Nadar had executed a Registered Will with respect to the schedule property in the year 1988 and further informed that the said Will may be in the bero of the deceased. The Petitioner and the 7th Respondent herein thereafter thoroughly searched the bero of their father late S.T.Kathirvel Nadar and found to their surprise and happiness that their father had executed a registered Will with respect to the Schedule property dated 21-4-1988 whereby he bequeathed the schedule property in favour of his sons namely the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent herein for their life and absolutely in favour of th
A valid Will must be substantiated by necessary evidence, including attestation by two witnesses; failure results in equal partition rights among legal heirs.
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 affirmed that a registered Will is presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, and mere disinheritance does not imply undue influence.
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.
A will must meet statutory requirements for validity; parties attesting a document are bound by their knowledge and consent unless proven otherwise.
Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act is applicable to Wills – Registration, by itself, in all cases, is not a proof of execution.
Suit for partition - Partial partition not permissible - Admission of parties - Will duly established and cannot be held to be forge or fabricated one.
The father of the coparceners had no right to bequeath ancestral property via Will. Wills are invalid unless proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving a Will through independent witnesses and upheld the validity of a release deed executed by the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of her claims.
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
