MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Banumathi and V. Periya Karuppiah, JJ.
N. Govindarajan —Appellant
versus
N. Leelavathy and Ors. —Respondents
OSA Nos. 110 and 111 of 2010
Decided on 1.7.2011
(B) Indian Succession Act, 1925—Section 63—Will—Burden of proof—Burden of proof that the Will has been validity executed and is genuine document, is on the propounder— Propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free Will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. (Para 17)
(C ) Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 63—Letters of Administration—Held—Court granting letters of administration/probate must satisfy itself not only about the genuineness of the Will, but also satisfy itself that it is not fraught with any suspicious circumstances. (Para 17)
(D) Attestation of Will—Effect—Held—Attestation of Will is not an empty formality, it means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of executants. (Para 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
R. Banumathi, J. —These Appeals arise out of the common Judgment and decree in T.O.S. No.43 of 2001 and Tr.C.S. No.899 of 2003 dated 7.10.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Suit T.O.S. No.43 of 2001 filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff declining to grant probate in respect of the suit property described in the Will dated 24.5.1995 executed by deceased N. Krishnamurthy appointing the Appellant as executor of the Will. By the same Judgment, learned Judge decreed the suit Tr.C.S. No.899 of 2003 granting permanent injunction against the Appellant from alienating/encumbering the suit property. Plaintiff in T.O.S. No.43 of 2001 and Defendant in Tr.C.S. No.899 of 2003 is the Appellant herein. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in T.O.S. No.43 of 2001.
2. 1st Defendant-1st Respondent is the wife of deceased N. Krishnamurthy. Plaintiff-Appellant is the son and Defendants 2 to 4 and one Vijayalakshmi are the daughters of deceased N. Krishnamurthy. The genealogy of deceased N. Krishnamurthy is as under:
N.S. Naidu (died on 12.05.1982)
Radhabai Ammal (died in 1986)
|
N.S. Krishnarnurthy (died on 28.2.1997)
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
N. Leelavathy N Govindarajan S. Ramadevi V. Maheshwari S. Vasanthi R. Vijaylakshmi
(wife) (son) (daughter) (daughter) (daughter) (daughter)
[R1] [Appellant] [R2] [R3] [R4]
3. The property bearing Door No.22/27, Krishna Rao Street, T. Nagar, Chennai measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 1,900 sq. ft. was purchased by deceased N. Krishnamurthy and his father N.S.Naidu under Sale Deed dated 5.12.1975. N.S. Naidu bequeathed his undivided half share in favour of Plaintiff under Will dated 1.2.1982 and the said Will was probated by the Plaintiff’s father in O.P. No.200 of 1986 dated 23.4.1987.
4. Case of Plaintiff-Appellant is that his father deceased N. Krishnamurthy had executed his last Will and testament (Ex.P1) on 24.5.1995 at Chennai bequeathing his half share in the property bearing Door No.22/27, Krishna Rao Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 in favour of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was appointed as executor under the Will dated 24.5.1995. Plaintiff being the executor of Ex.P1 Will has filed O.P. No.583 of 2001 for grant of probate. Defendants 1 and 2 filed Caveat and hence, O.P. No.583 of 2001 was converted as T.O.S. No.43 of 2001.
5. Case of Plaintiff is that as per the Will dated 24.5.1995 executed by deceased N. Krishnamurthy, Plaintiff is entitled to entire half share of N. Krishnamurthy. Defendants-Respondents have no right or title nor can lay any claim to 1/6th share each in the half undivided share of the suit property. Further case of Plaintiff-Appellant is that ground floor portion was let out to M/s. Jainsons on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000 during the life time of his father and 1st Defendant—1st Respondent [mother of plaintiff] was allowed to collect a sum of Rs.8,000 per month from the tenant to meet out the family expenses during the life of deceased N. Krishnamurthy and the same has been continued after the life time of deceased N. Krishnamurthy. Plaintiff was collecting Rs.7,000 from the tenant. It is averred that 1st Defendant-Leelavathy who was living with the Plaintiff along with her first daughter [2nd Defendant-Ramadevi] has diverted the entire sum so collected to other persons overlooking the interest of the family consisting of herself, her son and the unmarried daughter. From the rental income of Rs.7,000, Plaintiff was paying the Corporation Tax, Water Tax, Urban Land Tax and make provision for water to the tenant and had to maintain his mother[1st Defendant] and his last sister, as a result of which, Plaintiff incurred huge debts.
6. Resisting T.O.S. No.43 of 2001, Defendants 1, 2 & 4 have filed Written Statement contending that deceased N. Krishnamurthy never executed any Will in favour of Plaintiff bequeathi
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam
J. Mathew (died) v. Leela Joseph
Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh
Smt. Jawant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma
Ammu Balachandran v. Mrs. U.T Joseph (died)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.