Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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