Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, C.KUMARAPPAN
R. Subramani alias Mani – Appellant
Versus
R. Surendran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
1. OSA.No.250 of 2021 has been filed against the judgement and decree passed in T.O.S.No.47 of 2013. The other OSA.No.252 of 2021 has arisen against the judgment and decree passed in C.S.No.722 of 2018. Both C.S.No.722 of 2018 and T.O.S.No.47 of 2013 have been disposed of by way of a common judgment dated 29.05.2020. Further, the fact and law involved in both OSAs are intertwined and interconnected. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to take up both the OSAs together for common disposal.
2. The appellants in OSA.No.250 of 2021 are the plaintiffs in T.O.S.No.47 of 2013, and they also the defendants 21 and 23 in C.S.No.722 of 2018. Similarly, the respondent in OSA.No.250 of 2021 is the defendant in T.O.S.No.47 of 2013, and plaintiff in C.S.No.722 of 2018. The suit in C.S.No.722 of 2018 was originally filed before the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4271 of 1998. Subsequently, the same was transferred to this Court and renumbered as CS.No.722 of 018 and disposed of along with T.O.S.No.47 of 2013.
3. The brief facts in TOS.No.47 of 2013:-
a). The instant TOS has been filed to probate the Will dated 20.01.1961 and its Codicil dated 01.05
The court observed that the burden of proof rests on the propounder of the Will to dispel all suspicions concerning its genuineness.
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.
![Boomathi [Died] VS Murugesan [Died] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 934](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
Secondary evidence – Neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done ....
A Will must satisfy specific evidentiary requirements to be valid; failure to prove attestation leads to intestate succession among legal heirs.
The presumption of execution and attestation of a 'WILL' over 30 years old can be drawn under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act if produced from proper custody.
Registered Will's genuineness presumed; proof under Evidence Act Sections 68/69 via signature identification by witnesses suffices when attesting witnesses unavailable; disputing party must prove sus....
Section 71 of Act 1872 has no application in a case where one attesting witness who alone had been summoned fails to prove execution of Will.
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
