Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. Manjula, J.
Smt. M.Jayanti, W/o. Megarajan - Plaintiff
Versus
S.Krishnaveni Ammal, W/o. Seshachari - Defendant
C.S.No.373 of 2013 and T.O.S.No.17 of 2015 (O.P.No.76 of 2014)
Decided On : 10-02-2026
For the Plaintiff : Mr.V.Anand for Mr.P.V.Sudakar
For the Defendant : Ms.S.Shyamala
A holographic will lacking proper attestation does not confer validity under the Indian Succession Act, emphasizing the necessity of legal formality to establish testamentary intent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act XXX39 of 1925 - Sections 63 and 68 - Declaration of civil death and partition of estate - The court ruled that the absence of evidence to establish the validity of the holographic Will refutes the testator's intention, and declared the plaintiffs entitled to 10/13th share in the suit properties, dismissing the original petition for letters of administration. (Paras 30, 31)
(B) Proof of Will - The court emphasized the necessity of attestation and valid execution in accordance with the Indian Succession Act to confer legality on a testamentary document. Without proper attestation, a Will cannot be considered valid. (Paras 22, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Y.E.Seshachari, sought to declare a missing relative civilly dead after 30 years and partition the estate inherited from him, contesting the validity of a holographic Will allegedly executed in favor of one defendant. The relationship among the parties and the history of the estate were contested, and the plaintiff argued for intestate succession given the absence of the alleged testator's missing son. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Will dated 13.01.2008 was not valid due to lack of proper attestation and execution as required by law, and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to their shares as the legal heirs of Y.E.Seshachari. No evidence supported the execution of the Will under the prescribed legal formalities. (Paras 30, 31)
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition as prayed for? (ii) Whether the Will is true, valid and binding? (Paras 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the absence of witnesses to the holographic will as per the Indian Succession Act undermines its validity, while the declaration of civil death, being merited due to prolonged absence, affirms the plaintiffs' rights as intestate heirs. The testator's intent was not upheld due to inadequate proof. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: Civil Suit allowed, preliminary decree for partition granted; Original Petition for letters of administration dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of inheritance (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants' counterarguments against plaintiffs' claims (Para 3) |
| 3. issues framed for legal determination (Para 4 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. legal reasoning regarding title and intestacy (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. determination of validity regarding the will (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 28) |
| 6. final ruling on partition and dismissal of t.o.s. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
R.N. Manjula, J.
Civil Suit is filed to declare that Mr.S.Srinivasan, son of Y.E.Seshachari, is not known to be alive for 30 years and hence he has undergone a civil death and to pass a preliminary decree for partition declaring the plaintiffs 10/13th share in the suit properties and in consequence thereof appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds and allot the shares of the plaintiffs through the process of court and grant a final decree for partition putting the plaintiffs in their respective allotted shares through the process of Court.
Testamentary Original Suit is filed to grant Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the petitioner as a son / beneficiary under the Will of the deceased Y.E.Seshachari having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. The facts pleaded in plaint filed by the plaintiffs in C.S.No.373/2013 in brief
The plaintiffs are the grandchildren of late Y.E.Seshachari born through his daughter Saraswathi. Late Y.E.Seshachari had two wives. He got three daughters and one son. The eldest daughter by name Saraswathi who is the mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 died on 14.05.1996 by leaving the plaintiffs as her only legal heir. Her husband Raghuram pre-deceased her. The plaintiffs 4 to 7 are the husband, and children of another daughter of Y.E.Seshachari by name Seethalakshmi who died intestate on 14.07.1997. The eighth plaintiff is another daughter of Y.E.Seshachari born through his wife Rukmani. The son born to Y.E.Seshachari through Rukmani abandoned and deserted the house as a bachelor and he is not known to be alive for more than 30 years. Rukmani died on 17.10.1962. On the death of his first wife, Y.E.Seshachari married the second wife who is the first defendant herein and begot through her the plaintiffs 9 and 10 and the defendants 2 and 3. Hence, the plaintiffs and the defendants who are the legal heirs of late Y.E.Seshachari are entitled to the properties belonged to him. Y.E.Seshachari died intestate on 08.04.2008.
2.1 The plaintiffs and the defendants lived peacefully and harmoniously in Item-1 of the suit property and the income derived from and out of the suit properties were shared among the plaintiffs and the defendants up to the year 2009. Thereafter, the defendants stopped paying rents for the reasons best known to them. Some of the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 28.01.2011 to the defendants and demanded their share from the income derived from the suit property. On receipt of the said notice, the plaintiffs and the defendants have negotiated between themselves through a family meeting arranged on 01.06.2012. On 01.06.2012 it was agreed that the defendants would place the parties in their respective shares within a period of three months. The family arrangement was also recorded subsequently. The said family arrangement has been reduced into writing on 01.06.2012. Later, the defendants changed their mind and denied the plaintiffs’ share.
2.2 Item-1 of the suit property was purchased by late Y.E.Seshachari’s brother Kittappa Achari through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1939. As Kittappa Achari did not have any issues, the property was enjoyed by his sole surviving legal heir namely his wife Gnanambal Ammal and on the death of Gnanambal Ammal, the same fell into the share of Ezhumalai Achari who is the brother of Kittappa Achari. Y.E.Seshachari was in possession of the I Item of the suit property after the lifetime of Ezhumalai Achari until his death on 08.04.2008. Y.E.Seshachari died intestate leaving behind the plaintif
