Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
R. Babu – Appellant
Versus
Devaki, W/o. Late Siva – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.)
The above Testamentary Original Suit has been filed for grant of Letters of Administration to the plaintiffs as grandsons and daughter-in-law/ Legatees under the will of the deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu and Limited to the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the Will.
2. The above Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree made in A.S. No.488 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional Judge City Civil Court, Chennai dated 17.09.2014 confirming the Judgment and decree made in O.S. No.5093 of 2008 dated 13.09.2012 on the file of VII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.The plaintiffs in the TOS are the appellants and the defendant is the respondent in the Second Appeal and as both cases are interlinked and similar and the same, they are taken up jointly for final disposal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank in TOS.
4.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs in TOS are as follows:
(i) Ranganayaki Ammal died on 24.07.1980 leaving behind her son ie. Ramu Pillai and daughter ie. Lokambal as her legal heirs. The Petitioners 1 & 2 and the 1st Respondent are the son of l
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.
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 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....
(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 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 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 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 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 affirmed that a registered Will is presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, and mere disinheritance does not imply undue influence.
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
