Madras High Court
K.V.Ramaraj vs K.V.Selvaraj on 20 January, 2025
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 29.11.2024 Pronounced on 20.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
K.V.Ramaraj ...Appellant
Vs.
1.K.V.Selvaraj
2.V.Jayaraj
3.V.Durairaj
4.V.Senthilkumar
5.C.Vasantha
6.C.S.Manikandababu
7.S.G.Kavitha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012 made
in A.S. No.29 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 made in
O.S. No. 301 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.S.M.S.Sriram Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar (RR1, 6 & 7)
JUDGMENT
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
The appellant is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit for partition
claiming 1/6th share. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and the first appeal
preferred by the plaintiff, also got dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff
has preferred the second appeal.
2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:-
The plaintiff is the son of late Vengadasamy Chettiar, who died
intestate. The defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and the plaintiff are the sons and the 5 th
defendant is the daughter of the deceased Vengadasamy Chettiar. The
defendant No.6 is the purchaser and the son of the first defendant and in
whose favour the first defendant had executed the sale deed and the 7th
defendant is the purchaser from the sixth defendant.
2.2 The suit property belongs to late Vengadasamy Chettiar by virtue of a
sale deed dated 05.07.1968. He constructed two storied RCC building and at
the back portion he constructed a house. On 15.03.2000 the Vengadasamy
Chettiar executed two sale deeds in favour of the first and fourth defendants
and sold the house portion to the first defendant and the vacant site to the
fourth defendant. The suit property still remains undivided and it is being
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants jointly.
2.3. On 02.07.2001 Vengadasamy Chettiar died leaving behind his children,
wife along with his mother Venkittammal. After the death of the
Vengadasamy Chettiar his (mother)wife Venkittammal was collecting rents
from the suit property. She also died on 02.05.2010. After her demise, the first
defendant unlawfully collected the rents by himself from the month of April
2001. A panchayat was held in the presence of the village elders and relatives
at KR.Krishnamurthy House at Kavanai. In the said panchayat, a compromise
was arrived but the first defendant did not accept the compromise.
2.4. The plaintiff and the defendants are living separately due to some
misunderstanding between themselves. Hence, the plaintiff demanded for
partition by issuing legal notice on 08.10.2003 by claiming 1/6th share. But the
first defendant has sent a reply notice with false allegations that Vengadasamy
Chettiar had executed a Will in his favour.
2.5. In view of the false claim made by the first defendant, the plaintiff has
filed a suit for partition by claiming 1/6th share to him. As the defendant sold
his property to the sixth defendant when the suit was pending and the sixth
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013defendant in his turn had sold the property to the 7th defendant and those sale
deeds are invalid. The defendants 6 and 7 have also been added as parties to
the suit.
3. The short facts pleaded in the written statement are as under:-
Sri Vengadasamy Chettiar during his life time had executed a Will on
20.05.2000 in respect of the suit property and bequeathed the same in favour
of the first defendant. Subsequent to the death of Vengadasamy Chettiar the
Will came into effect and the revenue records also got mutated in the name of
the first defendant and thereafter, the first defendant sold the suit property to
the sixth defendant and the 6th defendant in turn sold the suit property to the
seventh defendant.
3.2 The suit has been filed with false allegations. As the suit properties is
the self acquired property of Vengadasamy Chettiar and he had also executed
Will in favour of the first defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as
prayed for. The first defendant also filed O.S. No. 578 of 2008 for partition
claiming 1/6th share before the I Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore.
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
3.3 The plaintiff in this suit is the fourth defendant in that suit. The suit is
for partial partition and it is not maintainable. The sixth and seventh
defendants have also filed written statement on the same line in which the first
defendant had taken his defense.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits A1 and A22 were marked and on
the side of the defendants, four witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW4 and
Exhibits B1 to B23 were marked.
5. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the materials
available on record, the suit was dismissed. The first appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs challenging the said judgment was dismissed by confirming the
judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred the second
appeal. The substantial question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is as
follows:
(i) Whether in law the Courts below are right in concluding that
Ex.B1-Will is genuine when there are many suspicious circumstances
surrounding the Will and the non-production of notary’s register are
patent on record and in contrary to the proof of Will under Section
5/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 201363(c) of the Succession Act ?
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first defendant
claims his right only on the basis of the Will and if the Will proves to be false
and not genuine then the plaintiff would get his share as claimed. The Will has
got suspicious circumstances as it does not have any signature on the first and
second pages and there is only one signature on the third page. In the schedule
of the property there is an interleniation and that also s doubts. The material
part of the Will has been stated only in first and second pages and there is no
signature of the executant in those pages.
6.1. D.W.1 has given self contradictory evidence with regard to the
knowledge of the Will and at one point of his cross-examination he has stated
that even the plaintiff is aware of the Will and at some other point he has
stated that he came to know about the Will subsequent to his father’s death.
The Will itself states that the Will has been handed over to D.W.1 and the
contradiction in the evidence of D.W.1 would show that the Will is false.
6.2. DW1 has stated that he came to know about the Will on 16th day
ceremony of his father and that the Will has been handed over to him by one
6/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
Venugopal. Despite the Sub-Registrar’s Office is just four kilometer from the
residence of the executant, it is unbelievable that he had travelled 11 kms to
the office of the Notary Public. In Ex.P10 – reply notice sent by the first
defendant he had stated the date of the Will. Since the Will is unregistered
one, absence of date on the Will assumes more relevance. No reason has been
stated in the Will to bequeath the property only in favour of the first defendant
by excluding all other legal heirs. Notary register has not been produced to
show that the executant had affixed his signature in the register.
6.3. D.W.3 has stated that the page number and Serial Number of the Notary
Register ought to have been entered in the seal affixed on Ex.B1 Will, but the
attestation does not have such details. In the property details there were some
corrections, but the executant did not attest the same.
6.4. The contradictions in the Notary’s evidence would only show that the
Will has not been executed in the presence of the Notary. The first appellate
court had not properly appreciated the suspicious circumstances surrounding
the Will.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in Ex.B1 Will,
7/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
the executant had stated that the first defendant alone is taking care of his
wife. As the first defendant was very affectionate towards his parents, the
father had executed the Will in his favour. The suit property is adjacent to the
property which was sold by the the father in favour of the first defendant. Suit
property being the adjacent property has been bequeathed to him for his
convenient enjoyment. The evidence of D.W.2 is sufficient to meet out the
requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act. D.W.2’s evidence is very cogent and convincing.
Since the Will was executed on Saturday it could not be registered. The Courts
below got convinced about the genuineness of the Will Ex.B1 executed in
favour of the first defendant and on that score dismissed the suits for partition
claimed by the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff and the defendants are the children of one
K.V.Vengadasamy Chettiar and V.Venkittammal, who died on 28.01.2001
and 12.05.2001 respectively. The fact that the suit property including the other
properties are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff’s father,
K.V.Vengadasamy Chettiar is not denied. While the plaintiff claims himself as
one of the legal heirs of his parents and he is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit
property, the first defendant claims that his father has executed a Will and
8/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
bequeathed the property in his favour and hence, the other siblings do not have
any right over the same. The defendants 2 to 5 did not dispute the execution of
the Will in favour of the first defendant and they did not prefer to file any suit
against the first defendant. Subsequent to the death of his father,
K.V.Vengadasamy Chettiar, the first defendant had sold the suit property in
favour of the 6th defendant and the 6th defendant in turn had sold the property
in favour of the 7th defendant on 26.04.2005 and the 7th defendant is said to be
in enjoyment of the same.
9. The appellant claims that there are doubtful circumstances surroundings
the Will dated 20.05.2000 (Ex.B1), and the same has not been properly
appreciated by the Courts below. Some of the suspicious circumstances
alleged by the plaintiff are enlisted below:-
(i) When the portion attached to the suit property have been sold by
Vengadasamy Chettiar in favour of the defendants 1 and 4 through a
registered sale Deed dated 14.03.2000, there is no necessity for him to
execute a Will in respect of three shops alone in favour of the first
defendant.
(ii) There is no reason to disinherit the other legal heirs of Vengadasamy
Chettiar.
9/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
(iii) The Sub-Registrar Office is just nearby to the residence of the
Vengadasamy Chettiar. Hence, it is unbelievable that the testator had
travelled to Coimbatore, which is beyond 11 k.m. To meet the
Advocate’s.
(iv) From the evidence of the attesting witness about the fact that he is not
known whether the testator of the Will was hale and healthy and he had
understood the contents of the Will.
(v) The testator had not signed in each and every page of the Will and his
signature is found only in the last page.
(vi) In the recitals of the Will, it is stated that the testator had handed over
the Will to the first defendant, but DW2-attesting witness has stated that
the Will has been handed over to him and he only had given the Will to
the first defendant after the demise of the said Vengadasamy Chettiar.
(vii) The corrections made in the Will has not been attested by the
Vengadasamy Chettiar.
(viii) In the seal of the Notary Public, Mr.Karikalan, affixed on the Will, the
essential details are missing.
10. Since the first defendant claims right over the suit property in pursuant
to the Will dated 20.05.2000 (Ex.B1), the burden is on the first defendant to
10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
prove the genuineness of the same. He examined himself as DW1 and one of
the attesting witness of the Will as DW2 and the Advocate, who prepared the
Will as DW3.
11. The suit property is consisting of three shops situated in a portion out of
the total extent of 10 cents. After purchasing 10 cents on 05.07.1968 the
owner Vengadasamy Chettiar had put up certain constructions like houses and
shops on a portion of the property. The remaining vacant site would be nearly
5 ½ cents. The vacant site and the two houses built in the 10 cents have
already been sold to the defendants 1 and 4 on 15.03.2000 through a sale deed.
Only for the rest of the constructions, viz., three shops in the suit property, the
Will has been executed.
12. As per the recitals of the Will, the testator had chosen only the first
defendant to acquire the three shops constructed in the suit property. The
testator has stated in the Will that it is the first defendant, who was
maintaining both the Testator and his wife. The Testator has also imposed a
duty on the beneficiary to maintain his wife from and out of the rental income
derived from the said shops and only after the death of the wife of the testator,
the first defendant would get the property. The testator died on 28.01.2001 and
11/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
his wife died on 12.05.2001.
13. Though disinheritance of other legal heirs can also be a ground for
raising a suspicion that alone cannot defeat the genuineness of the Will. The
testator has given a special reason as to why he preferred the first defendant by
excluding his other children. There are recitals to the effect that the testator
had preferred the first defendant, because he had been maintaining himself and
his wife by attending their needs, including medical expenses. As the said
Vengadasamy Chettiar and his wife Venkittammal were living along with the
first defendant during the last phase of their life, it is quite possible to have
some special consideration for the first defendant.
14. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported
in 2011 (5) CTC 262 in the case in G.Lalitha -vs- G.Ponnurangam and
Others, it is held that excluding one legal heir can be a suspicious
circumstance only if sufficient reasons were not given by the testator. In the
instant case, the testator had stated specific reasons as to why he had preferred
to bequeath the suit property to the first defendant, by excluding the other
sharers.
12/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
15. As per section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the first defendant has got
a paramount duty to prove the Will by examining atleast one attestator of the
Will. In compliance of the same, DW2 was examined on the side of the first
defendant. DW2 has stated in his evidence that the testator had taken him and
the other attesting witness to an advocate’s who is also a notary and showed
the Will to that advocate; the advocate read the Will loudly; after that
Vengadasamy Chettiar asked the advocate to carry out one small correction
and after the corrections were carried out he affixed his signature on the Will.
He has stated that himself and the other attesting witness Ganesan had seen
Vengadasmy Chettiar signing Will and thereafter, he had attested the Will.
16. It is claimed by the appellant that for the small corrections made in the
Will, Vengadasamy Chettiar did not affix his signature. It is the Advocate,
who had carried over the corrections at the instruction of the testator and he
affixed his signature as a Notary.
17. As a missing detail was included in the property details by DW3, at the
instructions of said Vengadsamy Chettiar, it is seen to have written in pen.
The whole of the Will is printed and the interlineation alone is made in ink.
Even though the testator had not attested the above corrections, DW3 who had
13/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
carried out the corrections had affixed his initials. Further, he had also affixed
his Notary seal along with his signature on the Will. DW3 has stated that he
has seen that the Vengadasamy Chettiar signing the Will in his presence. Both
the attesting witness and the notary advocate who had signed the Will have
stated in their evidence that they had seen for seeing the testator signing the
Will.
18. The evidence of DW2 and DW3 would only show that every effort was
taken to make the testator to know about the contents of the Will. Only after
understanding the contents, the testator had affixed his signature. So the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no proof that
the testator had affixed his signature after understanding does not hold water.
19. The learned counsel for the respondents had cited the judgment of the
Supreme Court held in Meena Pradhan and Others -vs- Kamla Pradhan and
Another reported in (2023) 9 SCC 734, wherein it is held that if relevant
materials have been produced to show that the Will has been executed in the
presence of the witnesses by the testator in a sound and disposing state of
mind, there is no need to doubt its genuineness. The relevant part of the above
judgment is given as under:-
14/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013“11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has
to be proved that : (a) the testator signed the will out of his own
free will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of
mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d)
the will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
12. Coming to the facts of the case, a careful perusal of the
relevant material on record and applying the provisions and
the case laws it is evident that the will was duly executed by the
testator in the presence of witnesses out of his free will in a
sound disposing state of mind and the same stands proven
through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses, namely,
Suraj Bahadur Limboo who was examined as PW 2 by the civil
court. This witness categorically states that the testator
executed the will in question and, both he and the testator
signed the will in the presence of each other.
13. As far as allegations made by the defendants are
concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no evidence on
record to conclude that the deceased was not in a fit or stable
mental condition at the time of execution of a will, or that a will
was executed under suspicious circumstances, or the presence
15/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013of any element of undue influence.
14. Thus, in the case at hand, we are of the opinion that both
the courts below have rightly noted that the relevant provisions
were complied with, and given the well-reasoned order
upholding the validity of the will, the same does not warrant
interference of this Court.”
20. The manner in which the testator had participated in executing the Will
by the witnesses would show that the testator was hale and healthy at the time
when he had executed the Will and that he had understood the contents of the
Will. When the propounder could establish the said fact, the burden would
shift upon the party who denied the sound and disposing mind of the testator.
The evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff did not disclose that the
testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time he executed the
Will. In other words, the plaintiff has not proved the contrary to show that the
testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time when the
Will was executed.
21. In Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi -vs- Mridula Jyoti Rao reported in
2007 (2) CTC 172 (SC) the Supreme Court has culled out the following
16/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
circumstances as circumstances:-
“33. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly
executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The
propounder is also required to prove that the testator has
signed the will and that he had put his signature out of his own
free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the
nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is
brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to
have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant
to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent
evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of will, a
signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution
thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and
debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue
influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator.
(See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage [(2002) 2
SCC 85] and Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty [(2005) 2 SCC 784] .)
Subject to above, proof of a will does not ordinarily differ from
that of proving any other document. ”
17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
22. Insofar as the sound disposing state of mind of the testator is concerned,
the first defendant has proved the same beyond any doubt. As stated already
the plaintiff has not produced any contrary evidence to disprove the soundness
of mind of the testator at the time when he executed the Will. As the testator
thought it fit to bequeath the suit property in favour of his son (the first
defendant), who had maintained himself and his wife, during the 15 last days,
there is no unfairness appears to be present in the disposition.
23. It is quite natural on the parents to prefer any of the children who take
care of them during their last days. In the instant case, it is the first defendant
and hence, his father has chosen him as a person to inherit the portion of his
property, which is the suit property. The propounder, viz.,the first defendant,
did not play any role in getting the Will executed and that circumstance is not
present in the instant case.
24. Just because the predominant portion attached to the suit property have
been sold by the testator in favour of the defendants 1 and 4, the genuineness
of the Will cannot be suspected. It is at the option of the testator either to
register the Will in the Sub-Registrar Office or get it verified by an Advocate.
18/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
The circumstances would show that the testator had preferred to travel to the
Advocate’s office along with the attesting witnesses in order to get clarified
whether the contents of the Will were correct. DW3 who deposed evidence
had stated that the testator had brought the Will and asked him to verify
whether the contents were correct. In fact, DW3 has read out the Will to the
testator and made him to understand its contents and then the testator got
satisfied and asked him to make a tiny correction.
25. In fact, the Will is seen to have got executed on a day falling on
Saturday and probably it could also be the reason why the testator went to the
Advocate’s office without opting to go to the Sub-Registrar Office for
registering it. Normally, the registered Will is safer than an unregistered Will.
But non-registration alone cannot be the reason to suspect the genuineness of
the Will, when the other circumstances surroundings the Will do not create
any doubt about its genuineness. So the testator’s option to choose to go to the
Advocate’s office though it is at a longer distance cannot be considered as the
ground to dispel the genuineness of the Will.
26. The evidence on record would show that the requirement of Section
19/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
63(c) of the Indian Succession Act has been complied. The witnesses have
already spoken in their evidence that they have seen the testator had signed the
Will. No doubt the proof of the Will has to pass the tests under Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. But
the proof cannot be expected to be of mathematical certainty. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held the above position in the case H.Venkatachala
Iyengar -vs- B.N.Thimmajamma reported in AIR 1959 SC 443.
27. The other suspicious circumstances raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the testator has not signed each of the page of the Will and he
had signed only at the last page of the Will. This position has already been
well settled in many decisions rendered. In this regard, it is worthwhile to
make a reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
held in Ammu Balachandran -vs- U.T.Joseph(died) and Ors reported in AIR
1996 Madras 442 on this aspect. In the said judgment, it is held that the Will
is only a declaration of the last Will of the testator; once the signature is
affixed, on the last page itself would be sufficient. The relevant part of the
judgment under para 49 is extracted hereunder:-
49. The third suspicious circumstance alleged by the appellant
is that there is unnatural bequest provided in Ex. P-1. In this
20/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013connection, it is better to look into the law reported in AIR 1962
Andh Pra 180 (sic), where a Division Bench of that High Court,
following the earlier decisions, has held thus:—
“As to the second rule formulated by Baron Parke, it has
been pointed out by Lindley and Davy L. JJ.
in Tyrrell v. Painton, 1894 p. 151 that it is not confined
merely to a case in which a Will is prepared by or on
instructions of the person taking large benefits under it,
but, extends to all cases in which circumtances exist
which excite the suspicion of the Court. The principle of
the decision in 1894, p. 151 has been consistently upheld
in several cases by the Privy Council (vide Sarat Kumari
Bibi v. Sakhi Chand, 56 Mad LJ 180 : (AIR 1929 PC 45)
and Vellaswamy Servai v. Sivaraman Servai, 58 Mad LJ
114 : (AIR 1930 PC 24)). The suspicion referred to in the
decision of 1894, p. 151 must be, as pointed out by
Jenkins, C.J”. and Woodroffee, J. in Jarat Kumari
Dassi v. Bissessur Dutt, (1912) ILR 39 Cal 245.
“one inherent in the transaction itself, and not the
doubt that may arise from a conflict or testimony
21/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
which becomes apparent on an investigation of the
transaction.”
What these suspicious circumstances are, cannot be defined
precisely, or enumerated exhaustively. They must depend
necessarily upon the facts of each case. Though a propounder
has the obligation to prove the Will in accordance with law and
remove all well grounded suspicions, the quantum of proof that
can be expected cannot conform to scientific exactitude or
mathematical precision. The standard of proof can only be one
that will satisfy a normal prudent person.
It may, however, be observed that when a question arises as to
whether the Will is genuine or a forgery, normally the fact that
nothing can be said against the reasonable nature of the
provisions will be a strong and material element in favour of
the probability of the Will (vide Bamasundari Debi v. Tara
Sundari Debi, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 65 (PC)). In Mt. Jagrani
Koer v. Durga Parshad, ILR 36 All 93 at p. 98: (AIR 1914 All
72) (PC). Lord Shaw observed as follows:—
“In the case of a Will reasonable, natural and proper in
its terms, it is not in accordance with sound rules of
22/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
construction to apply to it those canons which demand a
rigorous scrutiny of documents of which the opposite can
be said, namely, that they are unnatural, unreasonable,
or tinged with impropriety.”
These principles long established by the wisdom of the Judges
of the Highest Courts are not valued only for general guidance,
for ultimately, whether a Will has been really executed by the
testator in a sound and disposing state of mind is purely a
question of fact which will have to be decided in each case on
the circumstances disclosed and on the nature and quality of
the evidence adduced.”
28. In fact, the above judgment makes out the distinction between the
standards adopted in the English Law and Indian Succession Act. In English
Law, no Will can be valid unless it was signed at the foot or end of the Will.
Insofar as the Indian Succession Law is concerned, the signature need not be
at the end of the Will. When the Will is executed in a vernacular language, it
is usual to put the signature on the top of the Will and that would also make
the Will valid. So the above point that the testator did not sign at each of the
pages alone cannot be considered as doubtful circumstance to discredit the
23/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
genuineness of the Will.
29. The next point that was argued on behalf of the appellant is that the
recitals of the Will would show that the testator had handed over the Will to
the first defendant. But the first defendant who was examined as PW2 has
stated that the Will was given to him only after the death of the testator. Just
because the testator has handed over the Will to DW2 instead of the first
defendant contrary to the recitals, the genuineness of the Will cannot be
suspected. The testator could have changed his mind and handed over the Will
to one of the attestators of the DW1. So, that cannot be the reason for
suspecting the genuineness of the Will.
30. Insofar as the role played by the DW3 is concerned, he has signed as a
person who prepared the Will. Even though the testator has brought the Will
by preparing DW3 had approved its correctness and affixed his signature with
seal. DW3’s evidence has to be read along with the other evidence on record.
The lack of details in the Notary seal affixed by DW3 can be of no
consequence and that cannot be considered as a only circumstance on which
the genuineness of the Will should be suspected.
24/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
31. DW1 has been examined as one of the attesting witness in compliance
of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the attesting witness has also
deposed evidence that he has seen the testator signing the Will in his presence
and that would show that the Will has been executed in terms of the Section
63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
32. The holistic reading of the evidence available on record would only satisfy
a prudent mind that the Will came to be in existence only at the instance of the
testator and there is no fraud proved to have been played. Hence, no suspicion
can be attached to the same. As the Courts below had rightly appreciated the
merits of the matter and had chosen to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant.
As the First Appellate Court had also applied its mind while appreciating the
correctness of the judgment of the trial Court and confirmed the same, I find
no reason for interference.
33. As the Courts below have done the rightful exercise and only thereafter
they had chosen not to grant the relief as sought by the plaintiff, I find the
substantial question of law against the appellant.
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
34. In view of the above stated reasons, the second appeal stands dismissed
by confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012 made in A.S. No.29
of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 20.01.2025
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Maya
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
To
1. I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Coimbatore.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.A. No. 588 of 2013
20.01.2025
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis