Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

Health Conditions & Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Will Questioned: Karnataka High Court Declares 1996 Will Null and Void, Upholds 1992 Will

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has declared the will dated January 27, 1996, null and void while upholding the validity of an earlier will dated December 30, 1992. The bench comprising Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice C.M. Joshi delivered the verdict in the Regular First Appeal No. 134 of 2013, addressing the contentious dispute over the last will of the late M.N. Ranganathan.

The plaintiffs, Smt. M.S. Komala, Sri Girish M S @ M S Ramesh, and Smt. T Jayalakshmi Shivaprakash, contested the will dated 1996, propounded by the defendants, which surfaced under mysterious circumstances. They argued that the testator, M.N. Ranganathan, was not in a sound and disposable state of mind at the time of its execution due to his debilitating health.

In their detailed judgment, the High Court meticulously examined the medical evidence and circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1996 will. “The testator’s health and his mental capacity at the time of executing the will dated 27.01.1996 (Ex.D1) have been a significant point of contention,” observed the bench. The court noted multiple discrepancies, including issues with the process of executing and registering the will, which raised doubts about its authenticity.

The bench further highlighted the mismanagement of the testator’s estate by the court-appointed receivers, leading to unauthorized occupation and sale of the property. This aspect played a crucial role in unraveling the complexities of the case.

On the other hand, the defendants failed to challenge adequately the validity of the will dated 1992 (Ex.P11), which consistently bequeathed the estate to the plaintiffs and defendant No.10. “The defendants have not only failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D1 but also have not provided a convincing rebuttal against Ex.P11,” the court remarked.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier judgment of the trial court and declaring the will dated 1996 null and void. The will dated 1992 was upheld as the last valid testament of M.N. Ranganathan.

Date: 23rd January, 2024

 

Smt. M.S. Komala VS Sri M.N. Srinivasan

Latest Legal News