Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decree, Affirms Plaintiffs’ 7/12th 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 7/12th 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 7/12th 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’ 7/12th 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.

 

Similar News