Will Must be Proven with Rigor’ in Ancestral Property Dispute: Andhra High Court

High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decree, Affirms Plaintiffs’ 7/12^th Share in Ancestral Properties

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has upheld the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, regarding the partition of ancestral properties. The ruling affirms the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a 7/12^th share, dismissing the appellants’ claims of independent acquisitions and a contested will’s validity. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao delivered the judgment on July 15, 2024, reiterating the principles of ancestral property division and the rigorous proof required for validating wills.

The dispute centers around the partition of ancestral properties inherited from the deceased Sundarayya. The plaintiffs, comprising the deceased’s daughter-in-law and grandson, sought a partition of the properties listed in schedules A to C, claiming a 7/12^th share. The defendants, including Sundarayya’s son, wife, and daughter, contested the suit, asserting that several properties were independently acquired and that a will excluded the plaintiffs from certain inheritances. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting the defendants to appeal.

The High Court closely examined the contested will, allegedly executed by Sundarayya, which bequeathed the western portion of the B-schedule property to his wife. The court found substantial inconsistencies in its execution and attestation. “The propounder failed to prove the will as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,” the judgment noted, emphasizing the discrepancy in the ink used for the signature and the attestation process.

Justice Rao underscored the importance of reliable testimonies. The court found that one attesting witness did not testify about the attestation process, and the other witness had passed away. “Without credible evidence from the attesting witnesses, the will cannot be deemed valid,” the judgment stated, highlighting the rigorous proof standards for wills.

The defendants argued that items 1 and 2 of the A-schedule properties were purchased independently by Sundarayya’s wife. However, the court found no evidence of independent income or property owned by her. “It is presumed that these properties were acquired from joint family funds,” the court observed, rejecting the claim of self-acquisition.

The court’s reasoning reinforced the legal principles governing ancestral properties and the proof required for will validation. The judgment discussed how ancestral properties are presumed to remain joint unless convincingly proven otherwise. “The properties are presumed to be part of the joint family estate in the absence of clear evidence of independent acquisition,” the court affirmed.

Justice Rao emphasized the probative value of consistent testimonies and the burden of proof in will validation: “The defendants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to validate the will, and the presumption of joint family property remains unchallenged.”

The High Court’s decision reaffirms the principles of ancestral property division and the stringent requirements for will validation. By upholding the trial court’s decree, the judgment ensures the plaintiffs’ 7/12^th share in the ancestral properties, rejecting the claims of independent acquisition and the validity of the contested will. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal standards in property disputes and sets a significant precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Prakasha Rao (Died) & Ors. Vs. Ganapa Mohinamma & Anr.