Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Malini Ganesh, D/o. M. Viswanathan – Petitioner
Versus
Swetha Bharathi, W/o. Tamil Bharathi – Respondent
TOS No. 17 of 2022
Decided On : 12-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by the plaintiff (Para 5) |
| 3. procedural overview (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. facts about the will's execution (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. validity and execution of the will (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. legal validity of signatures on the will (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. attestation and evidence for the will (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. burden of proof on the defendant (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. relationship dynamics affecting the will (Para 18 , 19) |
| 10. challenges to the execution of the will (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 11. relationship with defendant and care provided (Para 23 , 24) |
| 12. discovery and knowledge of the will (Para 25 , 26) |
| 13. suspicion regarding authenticity of the will (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 14. conclusions drawn from evidence and testimonies (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 15. final decision of dismissal (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
R.N.MANJULA, J.
This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed to permit the plaintiff to prove the Will dated 18.11.2019 in common form, and that probate thereof to have effect throughout the whole State of Tamil Nadu.
2. The Original Petition filed seeking probate of the Will dated 18.11.2019 has been converted into Testamentary Original Suit in view of the objection raised by the defendant.
3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff was the sister of the deceased Nandhini Sathyamoorthy. During her life time, Nandhini Sathyamoorthy had executed a Will dated 18.11.2019 and made certain obligations to be fulfilled as per the Will from and out of the sale proceeds of the suit property. The defendant is the adopted daughter of the testatrix. The testatrix had appointed the plaintiff and her brother K.Ravi as executors of the Will. The testatrix was working as a Principal of TVS School at Tiruvannamalai and her husband predeceased her before 30 years. After the retirement, the testatrix settled at Kattuputhur, 60 km from Trichy and was living all alone without any dependency on others. During October 2019, the testatrix had undergone two major surgeries for implanting pacemaker and removal of cancerous growth in colon. For the said treatment, she was admitted in MGM hospital in Chennai. During her post operative stay at Chennai, the deceased had written a Will under probate before leaving to Trichy. Though she continued to live in Trichy, she visited Chennai for further reviews with doctors at Chennai. The deceased was engaged in a small work from home by making pickles and podis and made a small earning for herself.
3.1. On 25.05.2021, she was tested positive for Covid-19 and admitted at Hospital at Trichy. Thereafter, she died due to massive heart attack on 31.05.2021. Before leaving to hospital on 26.05.2021, the deceased informed the plaintiff who was in Chennai through Whatsapp message and phone call and instructed the place where she had kept the bureau keys and also about the important things to be done in the event of any untowardness. The testatrix died due to heart attack and the plaintiff took out the key as per the information provided by the testatrix and found the valuable jewels, house documents and a Will dated 18.11.2019.
3.2. After the plaintiff took custody of the Will, she informed the other family members by convening a ‘zoom’ meeting. But, the defendant did not join the said meeting. The brother of the plaintiff has chosen to recuse himself and did not want to take up the responsibility of probating the Will for the reasons known to him. The plaintiff despite suffering from certain ailments, has come forward to file this suit in order to fulfil the wishes of the deceased sister.
4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
The defendant is the only daughter and the legal heir of the deceased Nandhini Sathiyamoorthy. The mother of the defendant was a chronic diabetic patient. Just prior to the date of the alleged Will, the testatrix had undergone two major surgeries one for implantation of pacemaker and another for removal of cancerou
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence raised doubt about the Will's validity, and the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove that the testatrix executed it while in a sound and disposing sta....
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 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 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 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....
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
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
