Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
P.Nagaraj (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Rajammal (Died) – Respondent
S.A.No.575 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 18-07-2025
For Appellants : Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Ponraj
The validity of Wills and settlement deeds is contingent upon compliant proof under statutory provisions; failure results in dismissal of property claims.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Will must be attested by two or more witnesses - Evidence not established by appellants to validate the Will and settlement deeds - Courts have to ensure proper execution proof of Wills and deeds - Failure leads to dismissal of appeals regarding family property partition. (Paras 10, 11, 22, 26, 29)
(B) Appeal - Proving documents - Courts correctly insisted that unproven documents fail to confer rights - No legal basis to support claims when statutory requirements unmet. (Paras 20, 24, 28)
Facts of the case:
This appeal stems from a partition suit filed by a respondent against her siblings, seeking equal distribution of inherited properties. Disputes arose regarding the validity of Wills and gifts purportedly executed by their deceased mother, which the heirs contested.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts found that the Will and settlement deeds were not proven according to law, confirming the respondent’s entitlement to an undivided share of the property.
Issues: Key questions involved were whether statutory requirements for proving Wills and settlement deeds were met and the implications of improper documentation on the rights to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts maintained that the failure to prove the authenticity of Wills and deeds necessitated rejection of claims to property distribution, reinforcing the principle that legal documentation must comply with statutory proof requirements.
Result: The Second Appeal stands dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case background and parties involved. (Para 2 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. key issues regarding the existence and validity of wills and deeds. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. conclusion that the defendants failed to prove their documents. (Para 12 , 24 , 28) |
| 4. legal standards for proving wills and the consequences of non-compliance. (Para 22 , 25 , 27) |
| 5. final ruling of dismissal of the appeal. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
1. The defendants in O.S.No.380 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein.
2.O.S.No.380 of 2003 had been filed by the respondent / Rajammal who died pending the Second Appeal against the 1st and 2nd appellants / P.Nagaraj and Saraswathi @ Sarasa respectively who also both died during the pendency of the Second Appeal seeking a judgment and decree for partition and separation of the suit schedule properties into three equal parts and allot one such part to the respondent / plaintiff and direct the appellants / defendants to render true and proper accounts of the income derived by them from the tenants. The said suit came up for consideration before the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore on 12.09.2005 and the Suit was partly decreed with respect to A and C schedule properties and dismissed with respect to B schedule property. Challenging that judgment and decree, the appellants herein had filed A.S.No.99 of 2006 which came up for consideration before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and by judgment dated 06.01.2009, the Appeal Suit was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. Questioning that judgment, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal.
3.The Second Appeal had been admitted on 25.06.2009 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
“1.Whether the courts below have not adhered to the provisions of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act r/w Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2.Whether rejection of the Will is correct on the ground of misdescription of age of testatrix and mentioning of one of her son as minor instead of major, when the Will has been proved as required by law.
3.Whether the courts below are justified in deciding the validity of gift deeds Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 while the gifts were acted upon by the beneficiaries.”
4.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.N.Ponraj learned counsel for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. O.S.No.380 of 2023 (II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore):-
5.The Suit had been filed by Rajammal who was the respondent in the Second Appeal. The plaintiff, Rajammal and the defendants, Nagaraj and Saraswathy @ Sarasa are sisters and brother and children of Pattiammal @ Ammassiammal. There was one another son, Rama Boyan. It had been stated that during their life time, Rama Boyan and Pattiammal @ Ammassiammal had jointly purchased the A schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 04.11.1947. The A schedule property is land and building measuring 4851 sq.ft. at Sowripalayam Ward, Coimbatore. It had been stated that the brother of the plaintiff and the defendants, Rama Boyan died intestate and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants and their mother became absolute owners of A schedule property. It had been further stated that on 20.05.1958, Pattiammal @ Ammassiammal and the plaintiff Rajammal jointly purchased the B schedule property under registered sale deed dated 20.05.1958. It had been stated that after the death of Pattiammal @ Ammassiammal, the plaintiff and the defendants had become absolute owners of the 1/2 share belonging to their mother. The B schedule property is vacant land measuring 2034 sq.ft. at Ramakrishnapuram, Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore. It had been further stated that the mother of the plaintiff Pattiammal @ Ammassiammal had purchased the property in C schedule on 02.02.1970 under a registered sale deed. The C schedule property are houses bearing Door Nos.214 to 220 in land mea
