2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16202
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BALAJI
S.Munusamy – Appellant
Versus
V.Tamil Selvi @ Tamilarasi – Respondent
A duly executed will stands valid unless proven otherwise; the burden of proof rests on the party alleging coercion without sufficient evidence.
Headnote:
Administration - Testamentary Succession - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 63(c), 68 - The Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with legal standards for the execution and attestation of a will, determining the validity of the will based on evidence from attesting witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought Letters of Administration for a will dated 19.08.2008 from the deceased mother, which the defendant contested, alleging it was obtained under coercion and that the property bequeathed was government land. The will was misplaced for years, leading to delayed petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the will was duly executed and attested according to the law, with no credible evidence of coercion presented by the defendant. Evidence from the attesting witnesses established the will's authenticity and the defendant's claims were insufficient.
Issues: Whether the will dated 19.08.2008 of the testatrix is genuine, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Letters of Administration with the will attached.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the burden of proof shifted to the defendant, who failed to show any suspicious circumstances regarding the will's execution. The execution met the requirements of the Indian Succession Act.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs were granted Letters of Administration with the will dated 19.08.2008.
The present Testamentary Original Suit has been filed seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will of late,
Shenbagavalli Ammal dated 19.08.2008, annexed.
2.In view of the caveat filed by the sole defendant, the
Original Petition No.480 of 2019 was converted as the present
Testamentary Original Suit.
3.The case of the plaintiffs is that late, Shenbagavalli Ammal died on 01.01.2009, leaving behind a registered Will dated 19.08.2008, registered as Document No.115 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the said Shenbagavalli Ammal left behind her, her legal heirs, namely the plaintiffs and the defendant. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the original Will was misplaced and found only while clearing old things and hence, the Original Petition could not be filed within three years from the date of demise of the testatrix, Shenbagavalli Ammal. However, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Will was duly executed in accordance with law and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to grant of
Letters of Administration as prayed for.
4.The sole defendant has filed a written statement stating that the defendant has been living in the property which is the subject matter of the Will and the Will has been brought about under threat and coercion, taking advantage of the old age of her mother. It is further contended that the property which has been bequeathed under the Will is Government land and therefore, the Will is invalid in the eye of law. According to the defendant, the Will is filed after a lapse of ten years with a malafide intention to grab the property from the defendant. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have earlier filed a petition in Original Petition Diary No.19665 of 2018 before this Court and suppressing the same, the subsequent Original Petition, which stands converted as the above Testamentary Original Suit was filed. The defendant has also referred to civil suits filed before the City Civil Court which also throw light on the ulterior motive of the plaintiffs to somehow or other take over the subject property.
5.On 29.11.2021, the following two issues were framed for consideration:
“(i) Whether the Will dated 19.08.2008 of
Shenbagavalli Ammal is genuine?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff/propounder is entitled to Letters of Administration with Will attached?”
6.On the side of the plaintiffs, the 4th plaintiff, S.Ganesan deposed as P.W.1 and through him, Ex.P1 to P4 were marked and one, D.Santhosh, one of the attesting witness was examined as P.W.2 and through him, Ex.P5 and P6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 to D12 were marked.
7.I have heard Mr.S.Santhoshkumar, for Mr.R.Azhaguraman, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, for
Mr.SVS.Ilamvazhuthi, learned counsel for the defendant.
8.Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the sons of late, Shenbagavalli
Ammal, the testatrix and the defendant is the daughter of the testatrix.
9.The registered Will dated 19.08.2008 has been marked as Ex.P1.
The testatrix has affixed her left thumb impression in all the pages of Ex.P1, Will and also at the time of registration of the Will before the Sub- Registrar's Office at Anna Nagar. Two witnesses have attested the execution of the Will, namely Mr.D.Santhosh and Mr.N.Ramesh. The very same attesting witnesses have identified the left thumb impression affixed by the testatrix before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the Will.
10.Before going into the aspects regarding the proof of execution and attestation of the Will, the stand taken by the defendant challenging the Will should be kept in mind. Firstly, the defendant's mother was threatened and coerced in executing Ex.P1 Will and secondly, the property being Government land, the Will was invalid.
11.In this backdrop, I have tested the evidence adduced by the witnesses. P.W.1, in lieu of chief examination, has filed h
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
