A will must comply with statutory requirements for execution and attestation under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, failing which it cannot be considered genuine.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 63(c) - Testamentary proceedings - Suit for letters of administration with will annexed - Contention regarding execution and genuineness of will - The will found to be unregistered, not properly attested as per the requirements of law - Significant delay in filing petition, explained inadequately - Evidence evaluated shows doubts about authenticity and intent - Suit dismissed consequently due to failure to establish genuineness of will. (Paras 1, 9, 18, 30, 39)

(B) Contract - Validity of documents - The court emphasized the importance of proper execution, attestation, and the presentation of evidence in testamentary matters, addressing the necessity of adherence to statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Act in proving will. (Paras 28, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought letters of administration for a will dated 09.06.2004 of the deceased testatrix A.Meenakshi, following the discovery of the will years after her death, resulting in legal disputes with her surviving family members.

Findings of Court:
The will was deemed not genuine due to inadequate evidence of proper execution and failure to comply with legal stipulations, thereby rendering the petition invalid.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the will was genuine and whether the petitioners provided adequate explanations for significant delays in seeking letters of administration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the will did not meet the necessary legal requirements for validity, emphasizing the burden of proof upon the propounders of the will, and that unexplained delays contribute to suspicion regarding testamentary documents.

Result: Suit dismissed.

JUDGMENT

O.P.No. 590 of 2013 had been filed seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed relating to a Will dated 09.06.2004 said to have been executed by A. Meenakshi, who died on 21.12.2006.

2. The said Original Petition had been filed by A.Dhandayuthapani, his wife D.Rupavathi, his son A.D.Vishuprathap and daughter A.D.Banupriya, the son, daughter-in-law, grandson and granddaughter of the testatrix A.Meenakshi. The first, second and third respondents G.Komalavalli, S.Senbagavalli and D.Varalakshmi are the daughters of the testatrix A.Meenakshi. The fourth respondent S.Janarthanan is a grandson of the testatrix.

3. It had been stated that the second respondent, S.Senbagavalli had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 before the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. She had also executed a settlement deed with respect to her undivided 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property in favour of the fourth respondent. It had been stated that the petitioners had only recently found the Will and therefore did not file the petition within three years from the date of death of A.Meenakshi. It was under those circumstances that the petition had been filed seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed.

4. The second respondent S.Senbagavalli filed caveat and consequently, O.P.No. 590 of 2013 was converted as T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016.

5. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the Will had been manufactured by the plaintiffs. She stated that on the death of the parents, the properties had been inherited by the first plaintiff and by the defendant and by the other two sisters with each entitled to an undivided 1/4^th share. Thereafter, by a settlement deed dated 18.11.2010 registered as Document No. 2438 of 2010 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, she settled her undivided 1/4^th share over the property at old Door No.9, New Door No.17, Plot No.514, 3^rd Main Road, CIT Nagar, Est, Chennai – 600 035 measuring 1381 sq.ft., together with superstructure in favour of her son S.Janarthanan, who was the fourth respondent in the Original Petition.

6. It had been stated in the written statement that the agricultural lands at Uthiramerur Taluk in Kancheepuram District, Sirupinayur Village measuring 4 acres and 79 cents had also been settled in favour of her son S.Janarthanan by a Settlement Deed dated 08.02.2012 registered as Document No. 348 of 2012 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Salavakkam. It had been stated that the defendant had also filed O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 for a Decree and Judgment for partition and separate possession of her 1/4^th share. That suit had been dismissed since the defendant had already settled the property in favour of her son. In that suit, the plaintiffs did not produce the Will dated 09.06.2004.

7. It had been stated that the first and third respondents in the Original Petition executed a registered Deed of Release dated 10.02.2011 registered as Document No. 329 of 2011 in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar relating to the CIT Nagar property relinquishing their respective shares in favour of the first plaintiff.

8. It had been further stated that in the Release Deed, it had been covenanted that the property had devolved by inheritance. There was no mention about the Will. It had been further stated that there has been substantial delay in filing the petition which delay had not been properly explained. It had been further stated that there has been no explanation given how the Will came to be found. It had been further stated that it had not been specifically stated in the Will that the testatrix had affixed the signature in the presence of two witnesses and that the two witnesses were present when the Will was executed and affixed their signtures as witnesses to the Will. It had thus been stated that the Will had been created in a suspicious manner by the plaintiffs. It had therefore been stated that the suit should be dismissed.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64003

A will must comply with statutory requirements for execution and attestation under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, failing which it cannot be considered genuine.

Cases Referred (2)