Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
M.Doraisamy – Appellant
Versus
Mani @ Mohanraj – Respondent
SA No. 17 of 2020 | CMP.Nos.477 and 479 of 2020
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property and Succession
Act Referred
Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S.68, S.69, S.90
Indian Succession Act, 1925: S.63(1)(c)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: S.100
Headnote
(B) Proof of Will - A Will must be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act; it does not enjoy the presumption of genuineness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of primary attesting witnesses, Section 69 governs the secondary evidence required to prove execution, necessitating proof of the attestor’s signature.
(C) Inheritance - Where a male Hindu dies intestate, his self-acquired property devolves by inheritance rather than survivorship, making his daughters entitled to shares alongside his widow.
Facts of the case:
The suit properties originally belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiffs. Upon his death in 1945, he left behind his two daughters from his first marriage and his second wife. The defendants claimed title through the second wife, asserting that she became the absolute owner due to a Will executed by the deceased and via the enlargement of limited interest under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiffs challenged the Will and claimed their rightful share as legal heirs of the deceased's daughters.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to validly prove the Will as they did not examine attesting witnesses or provide sufficient secondary evidence under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, and that the presumption under Section 90 applies only to documents other than Wills. Furthermore, the court held that the property devolved by inheritance to the daughters and the widow, not merely to the widow as a limited estate that became absolute property.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the grandfather's property and whether the Will dated 12.03.1945 was proved in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A Will must be strictly proved according to the requirements of the Evidence Act, and presumption of genuineness for old documents does not extend to Wills. Furthermore, female legal heirs are entitled to inherit self-acquired property of a male Hindu dying intestate.
Result: The appeal was allowed, granting the plaintiffs a two-third share in the suit properties.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S.Krishnan, M. Guruprasad
For the Respondents: V.Raghavachari, R. Asokan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the background and procedural history of the partition dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. summary of findings by trial and appellate court regarding title and validity of the will. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments from appellants and respondents regarding inheritance and proof of the will. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court analysis on the invalidity of the will due to flawed proof process and lack of compliance with evidence act sections 68/69. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. court analysis on property devolvement by inheritance and the rights of female heirs. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. final ruling and decree regarding partition shares for the legitimate heirs. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2019 made in AS.No.08 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruppur confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2017 made in O.S.No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.
3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 33 of 2011 (originally O.S. No. 75 of 2010), filed against the respondents/defendants seeking partition and division of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs, along with other consequential reliefs. The defendants, who are the purchasers of the suit properties from one Natchammal, contested the suit stating that neither the plaintiffs nor their mother had any right or title over the properties. They contended that their vendor, Natchammal, was the absolute owner of the properties and had sold them for valid consideration. They further submitted that ever since their purchase, between the years 2007 and 2009, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, thereby disputing the plaintiffs’ claim. After considering the submissions on both sides, the trial court framed issues. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that neither the plaintiffs nor their mother had any right or title over the properties. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No. 8 of 2018, wherein the learned first appellate judge also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging these concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal.
4. The brief facts of the case:
The suit properties described in the plaint schedule are claimed to be the joint family properties of the plaintiffs. Originally, the properties belonged to the plaintiffs’ grandfather, Subbaraya Gounder, who had two wives. Through his first wife, he had two daughters, Nachammal and Palaniammal. After the demise of his first wife, he married again at the age of 71 years and passed away at the age of 72. Through his second wife, he had no issues. The first and second plaintiffs are the sons of Nachammal, and the third and fourth plaintiffs are the sons of Palaniammal. Subbaraya Gounder died in the year 1945, leaving behind his two daughters and his second wife. All of them were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After the demise of Subbaraya Gounder’s daughters, the plaintiffs succeeded to their respective shares as legal heirs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and Natchammal were in joint possession of the suit properties, along with other ancestral properties.
5. In the year 1977, they jointly sold a portion of the properties to one Amaravathi Gounder. Subsequently, due to misunderstandings between them, Natchammal, in collusion with the first defendant, created encumbrances over the suit properties with an intention to defraud the plaintiffs’ rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs issued a
