SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22293

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. Sudha, J
MANNARAKKAL MADHAVI(DIED) – Appellant
Versus
NANGANADATH PULPARAMBIL DEVADASAN(DIED) – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Are both the attesting witnesses in a Will required to attest simultaneously? Is it mandatory that one attesting witness testify regarding attestation by the other witness also? What should be the course followed in case the testimony of the attesting witness/witnesses is found unsatisfactory or when attestation is denied, or they fail to recollect the execution of the document? Is the propounder left with no or any remedy? These questions inter alia arise for consideration in this appeal.

2. This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 3 and 5 against the judgment dated 23/09/1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. The respondents are the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 6 to 9. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the suit.

3. Initially, the appeal came up before a Division Bench of this Court. One learned member of the Bench upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal, whereas the other learned member, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The last paragraph of the said judgment dated 12/10/2010 reads -

“Since we have delivered two separate judgments, one confirming and another setting aside the judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top