Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Witnesses Failed To Convincingly Establish Presence During Will's Execution: AP High Court Upholds Equal Partition of Ancestral Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable decision delivered on April 16, 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amaravati upheld the trial court's judgment concerning the partition of ancestral property among legal heirs, dismissing the appeal that contested the validity of a will. The appellants had challenged the trial court's decree granting equal partition of properties, asserting rights based on a will purportedly executed by S.R. Thillai Kaliyappan.

Legal Issue at Hand

The primary legal contention revolved around the validity of a will claimed by the appellants, which allegedly bequeathed the entire property to the appellant's son, excluding other heirs. The respondents contested the will's authenticity, leading to a thorough judicial examination of its execution and attendant circumstances.

Factual Background and Trial Court's Findings

The dispute involved properties left by the late S.R. Thillai Kaliyappan, who died on May 14, 1976. According to the appellants, Kaliyappan executed a will on July 23, 1975, favoring his son. The trial court, however, found the will surrounded by suspicious circumstances such as the absence of the original document, unconvincing testimony from attesting witnesses, and the non-registration of the will.

High Court's Assessment

Justice V. Srinivas of the High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court noted multiple suspicious circumstances concerning the will's execution, including the failure of the propounders to provide a satisfactory explanation to dispel the suspicions.

The judgment highlighted:

Absence of Original Will: The original document was never produced in court, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for its absence.

Testimony of Witnesses: The witnesses failed to convincingly establish that they were present during the will's execution or that the testator was in a sound state of mind.

Non-Registration: The will was not registered, further complicating the authenticity claims.

The High Court agreed with the trial court's findings that the will had not been proven valid according to the requisite legal standards.

Decision and Implications: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision that the properties be partitioned equally among all legal heirs, as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. The court underscored that the purported will does not alter the statutory rights of the heirs to claim an equal share of the ancestral property.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2024

Mahalakshmi Ammal and S.R.T. Ramaswamy vs. Krishnan Venkateswari et al.

Similar News