Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE, J
Banumathi @ Banumathi Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
D.Suseela – Respondent
Testamentary Original Suit | O.P.No.753 of 2015 | T.O.S.No.32 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Babu
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V.Seshachari
The court upheld the validity of the Will executed by the testator, affirming that he was of sound mind at the time of execution, thus granting Letters of Administration to the plaintiffs.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 232 and 276 - Testamentary Original Suit for Letters of Administration of a Will executed by D.Sundaram - Plaintiffs claimed that the Will was executed when the testator was of sound mind, while the defendant contended otherwise. The court found that the Will was validly executed, supported by the testimony of attesting witnesses, and the plaintiffs acted in accordance with the testator's wishes. (Paras 1, 19, 44)
(B) Will - Proof and validity - The court determined that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of executing the Will, and the plaintiffs satisfactorily proved the execution of the Will. (Paras 18, 44)
(C) Letters of Administration - Grant of Letters of Administration was justified based on the validity of the Will and the plaintiffs' adherence to the testator's intentions. (Paras 45, 46)
Facts of the case:
The suit involved a dispute over the validity of a Will executed by D.Sundaram, who bequeathed properties to his wife and daughters. The mother of the testator contested the Will, claiming he was not of sound mind when it was executed. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Will to be true and valid, affirming that the testator was aware of his actions and the implications of the Will. The plaintiffs were granted Letters of Administration. (Paras 44, 46)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to Letters of Administration. (Paras 6, 45)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs demonstrated the testator's sound mind and intent in executing the Will, thereby validating it and allowing for the grant of Letters of Administration. (Paras 19, 44)
Result: The suit was decreed, and Letters of Administration were granted to the plaintiffs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of properties involved in the will. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues framed for trial. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidence presented by plaintiffs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. defendant's evidence and arguments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. plaintiffs' arguments regarding the will. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's analysis of the will's validity. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. legal standards for proving a will. (Para 36 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 45) |
JUDGMENT
This Testamentary Original Suit had been initially filed as O.P.No.753 of 2015 under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking Letters of Administration of the Will dated 05.07.2013 executed by D.Sundaram, who died on 03.08.2013. The petitioners in the Original Petition were his widow and two daughters. The respondent was his mother. She raised objections. The Original Petition was then converted as T.O.S.No.32 of 2016 in which the petitioners in O.P.No.753 of 2015 were categorized as the plaintiffs and the respondent was categorized as the defendant.
2.It is the case of the plaintiffs, that D.Sundaram, late husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs suffered from cancer and with intention to bequeath the properties acquired by him and the properties in which he and the 1st plaintiff were joint owners, had executed a Will on 05.07.2013 in the presence of two attesting witnesses. It their case that the Will had been executed when D.Sundaram was in a sound and disposing state of mind. He died on 03.08.2013. The plaintiffs then filed O.P.No.753 of 2015 seeking grant of Letters of Administration.
3.In the written statement filed by the defendant / mother of the testator, it had been contended that D.Sundaram was suffering from cancer and was completely bedridden and therefore, was not capable of understanding the nature of the document he is said to have signed on 05.07.2013. It had been further stated that the plaintiffs sought partition of the properties of D.Sundaram and the defendant had also agreed provided 1/4th share was allotted to her. However, the plaintiffs had prepared a draft release deed. The defendant refused to accept the release deed. It had been contended that the plaintiffs had not revealed about the existence of the Will dated 05.07.2013. It had been specifically stated that the Will had been created by the plaintiffs. It had been therefore stated that the suit should be dismissed.
4.It must be pointed out that the plaintiffs sought Letters of Administration with respect to four properties. The 1st item of suit property was vacant land at plot No.11, Muthu Meena Nagar, Kabulakandigai Village, Tiruthani Taluk, Chengalpet District measuring 1 ground and 510 sq.ft. The 2nd item of property was plot No.4 with built up area of 1238 sq.ft., in the 1st floor, in old Door No.10, new Door No.26, present Door No.21, GRN Flats, Tilak Street, T-Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 together with 1/8th undivided share of 2 grounds and 1715 sq.ft. Both the above two properties were the self acquired properties of D.Sundaram. The 3rd item of property was land and building at old Door No.28, new Door No.6, present Door No.13, Varadappa Naicken Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033 measuring 1 ground and 64 sq.ft. The 4th item of property was land and building at Door No.15/1, old Door No.5, new Door No.15, present Door No.46, Naickamar Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033 measuring 1400 sq.ft., with built up area of 2824 sq.ft. In both item Nos.3 and 4 D.Sundaram was entitled to an undivided 50% share and the 1st plaintiff was entitled to the balance one half share.
5.Under the Will, D.Sundaram had bequeathed his share in item Nos.1 and 2 properties to the three plaintiffs in equal parts and had bequeathed his undivided 50% share in item Nos.3 and 4 in equal parts to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs / his daughters.
6.On the basis of the pleadings, the followi
