Back
V. SRINIVAS
T. Mahalakshmi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Krishnan Venkateswari – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.527 of 1996 dated 07.04.2004 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2, before the trial Court, are the appellants. The respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 21 are defendant Nos.3 to 21 before the trial Court.
3. The 1st respondent herein instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share of the plaint schedule property after dividing into five equal shares by meets and bounds, for past and future profits from 1993 onwards.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they arrayed before the trial Court.
5. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.
6. The case of plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows:—
(i) 1st defendant is mother, 2nd defendant is brother and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are sisters of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.5 to 21 are the tenant
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 ....
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.
The mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the Will, by itself, would not be a factor to hold that the Will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the fir....
Point of law : Section 68 only envisages the examination of one among the two attestors to establish the execution of Will.
![Boomathi [Died] VS Murugesan [Died] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 934](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
The court established that the validity of a Will must be proven through credible witness testimony, and the burden of proof lies with the propounder to dispel any suspicions regarding its authentici....
(1) Rejoinder – Pleadings incorporated in a rejoinder will never form part of plaint.(2) Will – Execution – Beneficiary can only prove that Will was properly executed by testator in presence of two w....
The court reaffirmed that a will must be proven free of suspicious circumstances, particularly when it excludes dependents with known health issues, rendering the presented will invalid.
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud in the execution of a will, and the plaintiffs successfully proved the validity of the will dated 17.03.1994.
The court established that the burden of proving a will lies with the propounder, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist, and that the absence of key evidence can undermine the will's valid....
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
