MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.

Latest Legal News