Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.Karthikeyan, J
L.S.Jayaprakash – Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi (died) – Respondent
S.A. No. 1059 of 2009|A.S. No. 54 of 2008|O.S. No. 379 of 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior Advocate, Mr.T.M.Naveen
For the Respondents: Mr.I.Abrar Mohd. Abdullah
Wills must comply with statutory execution and attestation requirements; non-compliance can invalidate them even if registered.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Will - Execution and attestation - Plaintiffs sought a preliminary decree for partition of the properties claimed as inheritance from the deceased. Both lower courts dismissed the suit, relying on Wills purportedly executed by the deceased which the plaintiffs challenged. The appeal raises substantial questions regarding the genuineness of the Wills and whether they could come into effect while one testator remained alive. The court identified issues relating to the burden of proof, the validity of the Wills, and the rights conferred under them. The court found that the Wills had not been executed in compliance with statutory requirements, leading to the conclusion that they were not valid. The cases were remanded with directions for partition according to legal rights established. (Paras 1-94)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, grandsons of the deceased Radhakrishnan, claimed 2/14 share in the property, asserting he died intestate. Defendants relied on Wills that purportedly distributed property without addressing the plaintiffs' claims adequately.
Findings of Court:
Neither Will execution satisfactorily complied with statutory provisions, particularly those ensuring proper witnessing and attestation. The presiding judge noted the active participation of interested parties in the attestation process as a potential indicator of undue influence.
Issues: The pivotal questions were the burden of proof for the Wills' validity and their legal effect given the testator's status at the time of litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity for strict adherence to the procedural requirements for Will execution and validity, particularly noting the presence of beneficiaries among those affirming the Wills as genuine undermined their legitimacy.
Result: Second Appeal allowed; preliminary decree for partition granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court decisions on prior suits (Para 4 , 10 , 12 , 16) |
| 3. family relationships and property ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. witness testimony regarding wills (Para 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. arguments regarding undue influence and will execution (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. counsel arguments supporting the wills (Para 38 , 40 , 45) |
| 7. legal standards for proving a will (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 68) |
| 8. court findings on wills and their execution (Para 90 , 91) |
| 9. final ruling and order (Para 92 , 93 , 94) |
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 379 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem are the appellants herein. The suit in O.S. No. 379 of 2002 had been filed by two brothers, L.S.Jayaprakash and L.S.Suresh against six defendants, 1.Dhanalakshmi (died), 2.Sundararajan, 3.Gopinathan, 4.Padmini, 5.Devaki, and 6.Geetha seeking a preliminary decree in their favour by dividing the suit schedule properties into 14 equal shares and to put the plaintiffs in separate possession and enjoyment of the 2/14 share and also pass a decree directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit.
2. By judgment dated 11.02.2008, the Principal Sub Court, Salem had dismissed the suit with costs.
3. This had necessitated the plaintiffs to file A.S. No. 54 of 2008 which came up for consideration before the Principal District Court at Salem. By judgment dated 12.11.2008, the Appeal Suit was also dismissed with costs.
-
4. The plaintiffs had then filed the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:-
“1. Whether the respondents 1 to 4 and 6, who have propounded Ex.B6 to B10 viz., Wills are not bound to prove that the said Wills are genuine, legal and valid documents and also come into force and inspite of their failure to do so, were the Courts below right in relying on those Wills and dismissing the Suit?
2. When the respondents 1 to 4 & 6, who propounded Ex.B6 to 10 Wills, are not bound to clear the suspicious glaring on the face of same, including their active participation in the preparation, execution, attestation and registration by signing as witnesses therein, the dispositions made thereunder were grossly unnatural, unfair and inequittable etc. and inspite of their failure to do so, were the Courts below right in accepting the Wills as genuine, legal and valid documents and dismissing the suit?
-
3. When it is specifically recited in Ex.B6 to 10 Wills that only after the death of both the testators, the st same would come into force and only the 1 testator st had died and the other testator viz. The 1 respondent is still alive, can it be taken that the Wills have come into force and admissible in evidence, accept the defence raised by the respondents 2 to 4 & 6 based on the same as sustainable and dismiss the suit?
O.S. No. 379 of 2002: Principal Sub Court, Salem:-
5. In the plaint, it had been contended that Semburamaiyar and his wife Kupputhayammal had a son Radhakrishnan and a daughter st Seshammal. The 1 defendant is the widow of Radhakrishnan and the nd th st 2 to 6 defendants are the children of Radhakrishnan and the 1 defendant. Radhakrishnan also had another daughter Sulochana. She died on 08.10.1990. The plaintiffs are the son of Sulochana. It is thus seen that the plaintiffs and the defendants are close relatives.
-
6. The properties described in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Semburamaiyar. He had purchased the same by a sale deed dated 29.08.1925 and registered as Document No.2200 of 1925 on the file of the Registrar, Salem. The 2nd item of the suit schedule properties also belonged to Semburamaiyar, who had rd purchased the same by a sale deed dated 27.07.1914. The 3 item of suit st properties belonged to Radhakrishnan, the husband of the 1 defendant and the son of Semburamaiyar, who had purchased the same in his name and in the name of his mother Kupputhayammal by a sale dee
