Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
M. Ramadoss - Appellant
Versus
M. Sarada Devi - Respondent
T.O.S. Nos. 10, 11, 12 of 2016
Decided On : 30-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. Surya Narayanan
For the Respondents: K.V. Babu, K. Sumathi
Validity of Wills requires clear proof of execution and attestation as mandated by law; suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will can invalidate it unless dispelled satisfactorily by the propounders.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 63 and 68 - Testamentary Original Suits concerning validity of three Wills executed by deceased - The Wills were executed in presence of attesting witnesses and alleged to be valid. However, evidence presented raised serious doubts regarding the legitimacy of Wills including inconsistencies, suspicious circumstances and lack of communication among heirs regarding property. The trial court found the propounders failed to satisfy legal requirements for proving Wills. (Paras 40-63)
(B) Wills - Execution and attestation - Requirements under law - To prove a Will, it must be established that it was executed with necessary formalities, and in absence of satisfaction regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding execution, the Will cannot be upheld as valid. (Paras 40, 56)
(C) Dismissal of petitions due to failure to establish validity of Wills based on prevailing legal standards concerning suspicious circumstances and absence of complete family context in the document. (Paras 58-63)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. valid execution of wills (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. defendants' claims against wills' validity (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. evidence concerning wills' execution (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. suspicious circumstances surrounding wills (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. requirement of proving wills under law (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. assessment of evidence from witnesses (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 7. relationship dynamics affecting will execution (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 8. final judgment on wills' validity (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. final judgment invalidates the joint wills due to suspicious circumstances. (Para 64) |
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
1. All these suits are relating to the last Wills executed by Mariammal and Madurai Muthu.
2. TOS. No.10 of 2016, arises out of OP No.631 of 2012 where the plaintiff as petitioner has sought for grant of letters of administration of the last Will and Testament of Late Mariammal and Madurai Muthu who died on 14.07.2006 and 01.06.2010 respectively, leaving behind a Will dated 21.09.2001,executed in the presence of two witnesses P.S.Narayanan and E.Sundar.
3. TOS. No.11 of 2016, has been filed by the plaintiff as petitioner in OP No.625 of 2012 seeking grant of letters of administration of the last Will and Testament of Late Mariammal and Madurai Muthu who died on 14.07.2006 and 01.06.2010 respectively, leaving behind a Will dated 21.09.2001,executed in the presence of two witnesses P.S.Narayanan and E.Sundar.
4. Similarly, TOS No.12 of 2016, has been filed by the plaintiff as petitioner in OP No.630 of 2012 seeking grant of letters of administration of the last Will and Testament of the Late Mariammal and Madurai Muthu who died on 14.07.2006 and 01.06.2010 respectively, leaving behind a Will dated 21.09.2001,executed in the presence of two witnesses P.S.Narayanan and E.Sundar.
5. It is seen that the deceased late Mariammal and Madurai Muthu have executed three separate Wills on the same day in the presence of the same attesting witnesses. The above three Original Petitions have been filed seeking grant of letters of administration by the respective beneficiaries. However, in view of the objections taken by the defendants, who are respondents 2 and 3 in the Original Petitions, the Original Petitions were directed to be converted as Testamentary Original Suits.
6. The sum and substance of all the three Original Petitions is that the the petitioner/plaintiff in TOS No.10 of 2016, by name M.Ramadoss, is the son of Mariammal and Madurai Muthu; the first respondent in the OP, one by name Mr.M.Madhavan is the another son of the said Mariammal and Madurai Muthu; the plaintiff in TOS No.11 of 2016 is the grandson through Mr.M.Ramadoss and the plaintiff in TOS No.12 of 2016, is the granddaughter through Mr.M.Ramadoss.
7. According to the plaintiffs, the Testator and Testatrix have executed the respective Wills on 21.09.2001, while they were in sound and disposing state of mind, memory and understanding, and that the said Wills were duly executed and attested as required under the law. It is further stated that, though an executor has been appointed under the Wills, the respective legatees have filed the three OPs seeking grant of letters of administration.
8. It is also stated that the subject property of the Will belonged to the Testatrix, Mariammal. However, her husband, Madurai Muthu also signed along with Mariammal and the Testatrix Mariammal pre-deceased her husband, Madurai Muthu on 14.07.2006. Subsequently, the Co-Testator Madurai Muthu also died on 01.06.2010. Under such circumstances, OPs have been filed and subsequently converted as the above Testamentary Original Suits.
9. The defendants are none else than the daughters of Mariammal and Madurai Muthu and in view of their objections by way of caveat as required under the provisions of the Indian SUCCESSION A
