ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
L. Narasimha Reddy and M.S.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Chereddy Subbamma (died)
and others —Petitioners
versus
Chereddy Nuchamma (died)
and Others —Respondents
L.P.A. Nos. 180 and 182 of 2002
Decided on 21.01.2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Exclusion of natural heir in the Will by the testator is a suspicious circumstance but when he was living with the other party since long he would certainly execute will in their favour and will no longer be a suspicious circumstance.
2. Limited rights of widow in a property, would ripen into absolute ownership under Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:(i) Indian Succession Act, 1925—Section 63—Andhra Pradesh Rules framed under Registration Act 1908—Rules 63 and 64—Partition of Hindu Joint Properties—Proof of Will—Suspicious circumstances—Exclusion of natural heirs—Putting of Thumb Impression on the Will—Wife and daughter of one brother filed suit for partition of the two properties detailed in the plaint against LRs of other brother—The defendant taking plea of execution of Will by the husband of plaintiff alleging that he was living with them since 1952—The trial Court disbelieved the Will and passed preliminary decree and thereafter also passed final decree of partition—Both appeals dismissed by Singh Judge against which LPA has been filed—Exclusion of natural heirs like wife and daughter, is certainly a suspicious circumstance—However, since husband of the plaintiff had snapped his relation and was living with other brother since 1952 till his death, certainly he would have executed will in his favour—Regarding Thumb Impression on the Will, nothing was mentioned whether it was right hand thumb impression or left hand thumb impression—Rule 63 of AP Rules mandates putting of left hand thumb impression in case of males—In the absence of endorsement to that effect, there was clear infirmity into execution of will—Therefore, the execution of the Will was not proved as per law, as held by trial Court.

       (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 14—Absolute rights of wife—Property given to the wife for maintenance—Plaintiff wife claiming one item of the properties to be her absolute property and sought exclusion from being partitioned—Allegation that the property was Joint Family Property and was given to the plaintiff for maintenance and she was having limited rights—Held as per Section 14 of the Act, her rights stood ripened into absolute ownership—The appeal partly allowed by upholding preliminary decree but excluding the property which was given for maintenance to plaintiff wife—Final decree modified to that effect.

       Facts of the case

        The plaintiffs were wife and daughter of one brother Yerra reddy were as defendants were LRs. of second brother Sri. Subba Reddy. The Defendants alleged that a Will was executed by Yerra Reddy in their favour as he was living with them since 1952 till his death. The plaintiff wife also claimed one item of the entire properties as her absolute property which was given for maintenance The defendants on the other hand also pleaded that one item No. 6 was purchased by Subba Reddy and was their personal property

       Findings of the court

        Regarding suspicious circumstances of the Will, though exclusion of wife and daughter by Yerra Reddy was suspicious circumstance but since it was proved that he started living with defendants since 1952 till death, he would have the propensity to express his gratitude by executing will in their favour. Therefore, it was held that it cannot be a suspicious circumstance. However, the thumb impression of Yerra Reddy was not proved beyond doubts as it was not endorsed as to whether it was right hand thumb impression of left hand thumb impression. In this regard rules framed by Andhra Pradesh under Indian Registration Act, specifically rules 63 and 64 prescribed the procedure in case of registration of documents. Rule 63 mandates taking of left hand thumb impression of the executants and in case it becomes impossible impression of other fingure may be taken and endorsement is to be made on the document but in the instant case there was no such endorsement. The trial Court rightly did not believe execution of the said document. Therefore, it was held that the execution of the will was not proved. Regarding item of the property given to plaintiff wife for maintenance it was held that under Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 her rights stood ripened into full ownership and said item could not be part of the properties to be partitioned. Regarding purchase of property by Subba Reddy, it was held that this property certainly was purchased out of joint family income as he had no independent income. Therefore, final decree of the partitioned modified by excluding item of the property which was given in maintenance to the plaintiff wife.

       Result: Appeal Partly Allowed.