Mere Mutation Of Revenue Records Doesn’t Confer Exclusive Title:  Madras High Court

"Co-heirs are deemed to be in joint possession and mere mutation of revenue records does not bestow absolute ownership – Proof of Will must satisfy the conscience of the Court, especially when execution is clouded by suspicious circumstances,” held the Madras High Court while dismissing appeals by a daughter claiming sole inheritance under a disputed testament.

Justice R. Sakthivel of the Madras High Court rejecting the claim of exclusive ownership over inherited property based on an allegedly fabricated Will and affirming the equal rights of all siblings under Hindu Succession law. The ruling was delivered in Appeal Suit, upholding the Trial Court’s common judgment and decrees in two connected civil suits involving succession, validity of testamentary instruments, and allegations of benami ownership.

The central legal issue before the Court was the authenticity of a Will dated 10.02.2006, allegedly executed by the deceased mother Ranganayaki, in favour of her daughter Amsaveni, just a month before her death. The Will excluded her three other natural heirs – daughters Balamani, Rajalakshmi, and son Velusamy – who challenged its validity and sought partition.

“Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Removed To Prove A Will” – Court Cites Infirmity, Contradictions, And Exclusion Of Heirs To Hold Will Invalid

The Court rejected the Will, holding that the burden of proof was not discharged satisfactorily by Amsaveni, the propounder of the document. Justice R. Sakthivel applied the landmark principles laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443, and observed:

“If a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it is not enough to formally prove it through attesting witnesses; the conscience of the Court must be satisfied.”

Referring to the facts on record, the Court found that:

• Ranganayaki was aged around 78 and bedridden from 2004 due to neurotic illness.
• The Will was allegedly executed one month before her death, when she was in a debilitated state.
• The attesting witnesses (D.W.2 and D.W.3) were strangers to the testatrix, unaware of her family or property, and their depositions were riddled with contradictions.
• The Will did not contain any reasoning for disinheriting the other natural heirs, nor did it identify the subject property with sufficient clarity.
• Survey numbers in the Will were wrongly stated, with reference to land that did not belong to the testatrix.

The Court found that the alleged attestation did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It further noted that the suspicious circumstances were not dispelled:

“It is not sufficient that the Will is signed and witnessed; the Court must be satisfied that it was executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind, with knowledge and volition,” held the Court, rejecting the Will in its entirety.

“A Property Purchased In The Name Of A Mother Cannot Be Claimed As Benami By A Daughter After 1988” – Court Enforces Bar Under Benami Law

Another significant contention raised by Amsaveni was that although the property stood in her mother Ranganayaki’s name, it was purchased using the retirement benefits of her husband and was therefore a benami transaction.

This plea was rejected outright by the Court citing the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and reiterating the ruling in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995) 2 SCC 630.

Justice R. Sakthivel held:

“Even assuming the plea was raised, after the enforcement of the Benami Act, such a defence is no longer legally available. The first defendant herself admitted the title was in her mother’s name and has now turned around to claim beneficial ownership. This cannot be permitted in law.”

The Court observed that Amsaveni had abandoned the plea of benami in her formal pleadings and evidence, and relied instead on the alleged Will. The plea was therefore both barred and inconsistent, deserving rejection on both legal and factual grounds.

“Fraud Vitiates Every Solemn Act” – Ex Parte Decree Obtained By Suppression Of Addresses Declared Void

The Court also addressed an earlier ex parte decree obtained by Amsaveni in O.S. No. 24 of 2009, in which she had secured a declaration of title and injunction against her siblings Balamani and Velusamy by alleging they interfered with her possession.

However, Justice Sakthivel found that the decree had been fraudulently obtained, noting that:

“The addresses furnished by the plaintiff for defendants 2 and 3 were false. She intentionally stated they lived in Udumalpet to avoid proper service of summons. The second defendant was residing in Coimbatore and the third in Canada.”

Relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Court held:

“A judgment and decree obtained by fraud is a nullity in the eyes of law and can be ignored even in collateral proceedings.”

It further observed that the Will was marked in that suit without examining attesting witnesses, violating basic procedural requirements for proving a testament.

“On Intestate Death, Property Devolves Equally On All Legal Heirs” – Court Affirms Equal Rights Under Hindu Succession Law

Having rejected the Will and the benami claim, the Court reaffirmed that the suit property was self-acquired by Ranganayaki and, upon her intestate demise on 17 March 2006, devolved equally upon her four children: the plaintiff Rajalakshmi, defendants Amsaveni, Balamani, and Velusamy.

“The moment Ranganayaki died intestate, the property devolved equally upon her legal heirs. Mutation of revenue records in favour of the first defendant does not give rise to exclusive title,” the Court observed.

It also noted that the partition suit was filed within 12 years and was properly valued under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The plaintiff and her siblings were deemed to be in joint possession.

Thus, the Court affirmed the preliminary decree of partition passed by the Trial Court, granting the plaintiff Rajalakshmi 1/4th share in the property and restraining Amsaveni from alienating or encumbering the shares of her siblings.

 “Relationship Cannot Excuse Usurpation Of Legal Rights”

Justice R. Sakthivel concluded the verdict with a balanced note on family relationships and legal accountability. While no costs were imposed due to the familial nature of the dispute, the Court underscored that inheritance must be settled as per law and not mere sentiment.

“Legal succession cannot be defeated by unproven documents, false representations, or manipulated decrees. The law upholds equal rights, especially in matters of inheritance,” the Court remarked.

Date of Decision: 6 November 2025