Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J
J.Yeshoda – Appellant
Versus
L.Sathyamoorthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff alleges manipulation of will during illness; defendants uphold valid execution. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. trial court granted partition; appellate court upheld will and dismissed suit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. appellant highlights suspicious circumstances, inconsistencies in will proof. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. attesting witnesses adequately prove will execution; signature alone insufficient. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. pw evidence considered; does not invalidate prior will execution. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. suit properties treated as absolute; not coparcenary. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. scribe non-examination not fatal; appeal dismissed confirming decree. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013 in A.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, whereby the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.08.2010 in O.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, were reversed and the suit for partition was dismissed.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The plainti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
