Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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