Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 54703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Krithika – Appellant
Versus
Vinoth – Respondent
S.A. No.773 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Thilageswaran
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Jawahar
The court affirmed the requirement for rigorous proof in will validation, emphasizing that discrepancies in signatures raise questions about the intent behind property disposition.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Defendants challenged the findings of the first appellate court regarding the validity of a will executed by the testator for property division. The arguments centered on the execution and proof of the Wills, where court found discrepancies in signatures. (Paras 8-16)
(B) Property Law - Rights in Property - The court found that plaintiffs are entitled to a 5/7th share based on the last valid Will. It underscored the importance of evidentiary standards in determining the validity of Wills and the enforceability of property claims. (Paras 10-16)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly dismissed the suit based on the proof of a later Will, and the appellate court erred in its findings, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal. The matter highlights procedural diligence in proving wills, particularly subject to conflicting testimonies. (Paras 15-17)
(D)
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the Wills, whether proper proof was presented regarding signatures, and if the testator’s last Will was valid. (Paras 10-11) (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a Will to be recognized, it must be proven with clear evidence and signatures must match established standards, especially when conflicting claims arise from legal heirs. (Paras 14-16) (F)
Result: Second appeal dismissed, maintaining the ruling of the first appellate court recognizing the plaintiffs' claim based on the valid Will.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of 5/7th share in property based on testator's will. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. admissibility of wills and evidentiary standards for their validity. (Para 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. arguments against the findings of first appellate court regarding the will. (Para 9 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. importance of rigorous proof for the validity of wills. (Para 15) |
| 5. final decision regarding plaintiffs' share and possessory rights. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming 5/7th share in the suit schedule property by passing a preliminary decree with meats and bounds.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.
3. The case of plaintiff is that the suit property originally belongs to their grandfather Saravanan and he had four sons viz., Karunakaran, Vadivel, Nalaboopathy and Baskaran. The plaintiffs herein are the son and daughters of Nalaboopathy. The defendants 1 and 2 are daughters of Baskaran, 3rd defendant is the wife of Vadivel and 4th defendant is the son of Baskaran.
4. Geneological tree is extracted hereinbelow :-
Saravanan (died)
I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
Karunakaran Vadivel (died) Nalaboopathy Bhaskaran | | |
Meenashi (wife) | ------------------
(D3) | | |
| Minor Kirthika Minor | (D1) Pavithra | (D2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
Vinod Vinodhini Minor Vignesh Minor Vivek Minor Vineetha (P1) (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5)
5. During the life time of the plaintiffs grandfather Saravanan, he had executed a registered Will on 10.01.1995 and the same was in custody of his son Vadivel, after his demise, his wife 3rd defendant is in possession of the said Will. The testator Saravanan executed a Will in favour of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, who are his grandchildren by giving absolute right over the suit property and on 22.07.2001 the Testator was died. As per the Will, the plaintiffs and defendants have jointly enjoyed the property, however, as there is no cordiality between them, the plaintiffs filed a suit for division of property claiming 5/7th share and contended that the shop in first item was given for rent to the 3rd defendant, in second item, 3rd defendant was residing and backyard of the said house commonly enjoyed and for the division of property, the suit has been filed.
6. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed a written statement stating that the first item belongs to Dharumapuram Adhinam and not enjoyed by plaintiffs grandfather Saravanan. In respect of second item under lease, Saravanan's father Ramalingam Sambuvarayar cultivated the lands and on 17.08.1981, the said Ramalingam and his co-sons executed a Karavolai chit, in that, 'E' schedule was alloted to Saravanan. These defendants further submit that on 10.01.1995 Saravanan executed a Will and the same was cancelled on 05.12.1999 and executed another Will and it is a last Will of Testator Saravanan. As per the Will, the property in Survey No.63 measuring an extent of 15,192 sq.ft. along with trees and two shops in T.S.No.596 within 200 ft. was described as B schedule, which were given to Testator's son Vadivel, after his demise, the same were given to Baskaran. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to claim partition based on the Will dated 10.01.1995, which was already executed by the Testator, thereby they prayed to dismiss the suit as no merit. The reply statement was filed by the plaintiffs denying the cancellation of Will as well as execution of another Will dated 05.12.1999.
7. Considering both side submissions, the trial court framed five issues and in respect of both Wills, two issues were framed. Both parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence and attestor of the Will was also been examined. On considering the evidence on record, in respect of issue No.1, whe
