Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M. Prema Latha – Appellant
Versus
Jaligama Prakash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G. Priyadarsini, J.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2018 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned Judgment’) passed in O.S.No.835 of 2012 on the file of learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), the sole plaintiff preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the sole appellant herein i.e., plaintiff, who is the daughter Jaligama Balaiah, filed O.S.No.835 of 2012 against her brothers, sister and their family members, who are defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property i.e., house bearing MCH No.3-6-369/A/22 admeasuring 773 square yards situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
4. The averments of plaint in brief are as under:
a) The plaintiff, defendant No.5 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are daughters and sons of Late Jaligama Balaiah @ Balappa respectively. Late Jaligama Balaiah @ Balappa alleged to have purchased land admeasuring 948 square yards through thre
The court upheld the validity of an undated Will which excluded the plaintiff from the property, ruling that her delay and knowledge of the Will barred her claim to partition.
Bona fide purchasers must act in good faith and with reasonable inquiry to gain protection under ownership claims; mere ignorance of actual ownership is not sufficient.
Proof of execution of Will – In cases where document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of attesting witnesses has been called f....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
The court emphasized the necessity of proving a Will through independent witnesses and upheld the validity of a release deed executed by the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of her claims.
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 ruled that the alleged adoption was not proved and the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, entitling the plaintiffs to partition of the properties.
Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act is applicable to Wills – Registration, by itself, in all cases, is not a proof of execution.
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
