Madras High Court Validates Registered Will, Labels Subsequent Unregistered Will as Shrouded with Suspicion

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the decision of the Lower Appellate Court regarding the genuineness of two Wills and the partition of ancestral property. The judgment, delivered by Justice Abdul Quddhose, emphasizes the credibility of the registered Will dated December 6, 2001 (Ex.X1) and dismisses the subsequent unregistered Will dated February 3, 2004 (Ex.B1) as suspicious. The court has thus rectified the allocation of shares to align with the genuine Will.

The primary issue in the case revolved around the authenticity of two Wills executed by the testator, Mari Chettiar. The Trial Court had originally dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, favoring the Will dated February 3, 2004 (Ex.B1), which bequeathed the properties to the first defendant, Lingaraj. However, the Lower Appellate Court overturned this decision, favoring the earlier Will dated December 6, 2001 (Ex.X1), which was in favor of the plaintiffs, M. Girija and M. Chandramani.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that Ex.X1 was a registered Will and its genuineness was supported by consistent evidence from key witnesses, including the testator’s brother and one of the attesting witnesses. “The act of registration is a solemn act lending assurance to the genuineness of the Will,” the judgment emphasized. The court found that the recitals in Ex.X1 were natural and factual, reflecting the testator’s intent to safeguard the future of his unmarried daughter, the second plaintiff.
In contrast, Ex.B1 was an unregistered Will with several suspicious circumstances. The court noted that Ex.B1 did not mention the earlier Will (Ex.X1) nor did it contain a revocation clause. Additionally, the evidence presented by the first defendant failed to dispel these suspicions. “The subsequent Will dated 03.02.2004 (Ex.B1) is not a genuine Will, as it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances,” the court observed.
The court extensively discussed the principles for evaluating the genuineness of Wills, reiterating that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of the Will. In this case, the first defendant failed to provide convincing evidence to support Ex.B1, while the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the authenticity of Ex.X1 through credible witnesses and the act of registration.
Justice Abdul Quddhose remarked, “The registration of Ex.X1 lends it a high degree of credibility, especially when contrasted with the unregistered and suspicious Ex.B1. The plaintiffs have provided consistent and reliable evidence to prove the genuineness of Ex.X1.”
The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the importance of registration and credible evidence in disputes over the genuineness of Wills. By upholding the Lower Appellate Court’s findings and rectifying the allocation of shares according to Ex.X1, the judgment reaffirms the legal principles governing the evaluation of Wills. This ruling is expected to serve as a significant precedent in future cases involving Will disputes and the partition of ancestral properties.
 

Date of Decision: June 20, 2024