Madras High Court
A.N.S.Rajasekaran vs A.N.S.Appadurai on 18 April, 2023
A.S.No.321 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
A.S.No.321 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.4082 of 2017
A.N.S.Rajasekaran
.. Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs
1.A.N.S.Appadurai
2.A.N.S.Rajan @ Gnanaselvam
3. A.N.S.Murugaiyan
... Respondents
Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Order 41 Rule (1) of the r/w
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree
dated 29.02.2016 made in O.S. No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Pondicherry.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
For appellant : Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel
For RR1 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For R2 : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
For R3 : MR.K.Sukumaran
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 29.02.2016 made in O.S. No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Pondicherry.
2.The plaintiff in O.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. The respondents are the
defendant in this suit. The plaintiff filed the said suit for partition and for
allotment of one half share in the ''A'' Schedule property. The Trial Court by
a decree and judgment dated 29.02.2016, has dismissed the suit with costs.
Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court with this first appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
Brief averments of the plaint:
The plaintiff and the defendants are the sons of one Sachidanandam.
The suit “A” and “B” schedule properties were allotted to the father of the
plaintiff and defendants namely Sachidanandam by virtue of a Partition Deed
dated 23.01.1959, entered into between him and his brother
Muthukumarasamy. The said Sachidanandam died on 5.10.1997. During his
life time, he had executed a registered Will dated 21.7.1993, registered as
Document No.231 of 1993 in which he had bequeathed suit the “A” schedule
property situated at Old Door No.95, New Door NO.109, Kamatchi Amman
Koil Street, Puducherry, in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and the 3rd
defendant. By the said Will, the said Sachidanandam had also allotted the
suit “B” schedule property namely Old Door No.12, New Door No.16. Nehru
Street (Mariamman Koil Street), Kadirkamam, Oulgaret Commune, in favour
of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The boundaries of the “A” and “B'' schedule
properties had also been mentioned in the Will. The father of the plaintiff and
the defendants divided the “A” schedule property by 17' x 40' each having
common pathway instead of dividing into 10.35'x80'. The plaintiff came to
know about the registration of the Will only recently. Taking advantage of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
his absence, the 3rd defendant had influenced the father Sachidanandam to
execute the said Will. The defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment
of the suit properties and have not divided the properties into metes and
bounds according to the registered Will dated 27.01.1993. However the 3rd
defendant had put up a construction over the “A'' schedule suit property. The
plaintiff also sought a share in the family business. Since the defendants did
not come forward for partition of the properties, the plaintiff sent a legal
notice on 02.01.2013. Hence the suit.
Brief averments of written statement filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants:-
3. These defendants are unnecessary parties in this suit. These
defendants have been allotted with the “B” schedule suit property over which
the plaintiff had not sought for any relief. Their father Sachidanandam had
bequeathed the properties equally by allotting two shares in the suit “A”
schedule property to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant and allotting two
shares in the suit “B” schedule property to these defendants. The Will had
come into force and the respective parties are residing in the respective
shares and consequently there is no cause of action for the suit and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
necessity for a partition of the property at all. The Will had been in force for
sixteen years since 21.05.1997 and the plaintiff also got electricity
connection and patta in his name in the year 2006 itself and that the suit is
vexatious in nature. The Will had been duly executed and registered by their
father and had been acted upon by the parties. Hence a suit for partition is not
maintainable.
Written Statement filed by the 3rd Defendant:
4. According to this defendant, the registered Will of the father has
been acted upon. The plaintiff and this defendant were allotted equal share
with specific boundaries in the “A” schedule property. After the death of the
father, the plaintiff and this defendant had taken possession of their
respective shares. The plaintiff also issued no objection letter dated
06.04.2000 to the Electricity Department to change the service connection in
the name of this defendant in the portion allotted to this defendant. The
Municipal Authorities also allotted two separate door numbers for the said
two portions in “A” schedule suit property. The plaintiff's portion bears the
Door No.109-A and this defendant's portion bears the Door No.109. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
electricity connection for the rear portion for Door No.109-A stands in the
name of the plaintiff and the electricity connection for the front portion in
Door No.109 is in the name of this defendant also the suit is barred by
limitation as correct Court-fees had not been paid. This defendant had also
filed necessary revenue records to show that the plaintiff had actually taken
possession and enjoyed the portion allotted to him by their father.
5.On consideration of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get ½ share in
the “A” schedule property?
2. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is
correct?
3. To what relief the plaintiff/appellant is entitled?
6. During Trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1.One Pazhani @
Sivalingam was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the plaintiff, as many as
12 documents were exhibited and marked as Exs.A1 to A.12. On the side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
the defendants/respondents, the defendant 1 to 3 were examined as D.W.1 to
D.W.3. Ex.B.1 to B.26 were marked.
7.Having considered all the above, the trial Court dismissed the suit
with costs. That is how, the plaintiff is before this Court with this first appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per ranking in
the trial Court.
8.In this first appeal, it is contended by the plaintiff that the trial Court
failed to take note of the fact that the suit properties were allotted to the
father of the parties namely Sachidanandam, under registered partition deed
and so the suit properties are ancestral in nature. Therefore, the father of the
parties is not entitled to make a Will. The trial Court erroneously shifted the
burden of proof on the plaintiff to disprove the alleged Will, despite the fact
that the Will has to be proved in a manner known to law by its propounder.
The trial Court failed to apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Kartar Kaur and Anr. vs. Milkho and Ors reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
1996(11)SCC626 and in Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt Amrit kaur, reported in AIR
1977 SC 74 that the Will has to be proved in accordance to law by the person
who propounds it. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
9.The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that
even if there is no specific denial on the part of the plaintiff in respect of the
alleged Will, the propounder of the Will namely the defendant's ought to
have proved the execution of the A.1 Will in accordance with law. He would
vehemently contend that the burden to prove the execution of the Will is
always upon the propounder of the Will. In this case, according to him, the
defendants who propounds the Will has not proved the same to the hilt as
required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel
would further submit that no steps have been taken by the defendants to
summon the attesting witnesses to prove the due execution. Thus, according
to him, the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act have not
been satisfied by the defendant. By taking me through the evidence of P.W.1
and the averments made in the plaint, he would submit that the plaintiff has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
only admitted that existence of the Will and not the execution of the same. So
far as the execution of the Will concerned, the plaintiff has denied the same,
he contended. The learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff came to
know about the registration of the Will only in recent times and taking
advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant had influenced the
father Sachidanandam to execute the said Will. His further contention is that
the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the
suit properties and have not divided the properties into metes and bounds as
per the Will dated 27.01.1993. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the
Will upon which, the defendants claims absolute title has not been proved in
accordance with law. He would further submit that, if once, the Will goes out
of consideration, as it has not been proved, then, the plaintiff is entitled to
half share in the suit ''A'' schedule property.
10.Reiterating the findings of trial Court, the learned counsel for the
defendants submitted that when the plaintiff has admitted the execution of
Ex.A.1 Will and acted upon, it is not right to say that Ex.A.1 Will has to be
proved in accordance with law. The learned counsel would further submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
that, in the said Will 'B' schedule property was allotted to the shares of
defendants 1 & 2 over which the plaintiff had not sought any relief. Their
father Sachidanandam had bequeathed equally by allotting two shares in the
'A' schedule property to the plaintiff and 3rd defendant and by allotting two
shares in the 'B' schedule property to defendants 1 & 2. The Will came into
force and the respective parties are residing in the respective shares and there
is no necessity for a partition in the suit properties. It is further submitted that
the Will had been in force for sixteen years since 21.05.1997 and the plaintiff
also got electricity connection and patta in his name in the year 2006 itself.
11.The learned counsel by referring to the grounds raised in the first
appeal would submit that, there was no dispute raised regarding existence
and execution of Ex.A1 Will by the plaintiff neither in the plaint nor in his
evidence and the plaintiff during his cross examination has categorically
admitted the execution of the Will. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the
execution of the Will. Hence, the suit for partition is not maintainable and the
trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit with costs. Therefore, no
interference calls for in the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
12.From the above submissions made and from the pleadings and
evidences available and from the judgment of the trial Court, in my
considered opinion, the following points for consideration have arisen in this
first appeal:-
''1.Whether the trial Court was right in relying
upon Ex.A1. Will only based on the admissions
made by the plaintiff without the same being
proved in accordance with Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act?
2.Whether the appeal can be allowed or not?''
13. Point No.1 &2
I have considered the above submissions made by the respective
counsels for the parties. The main focus of the argument by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff revolved around the admissibility of the Will without
the same being proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether such a proof
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
can be dispensed with if the execution of the Will has been admitted by the
plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied on the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Verma (Dead)
Through Legal representatives Vs.Lajesh Saxena (dead) by legal
representatives and another] reported in 2017 1 SCC 257. The relevant
portion in the judgment is extracted hereunder:
'' Para 13. A Will like any other document is to be
proved in terms of the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian
Succession Act and the Evidence Act. The porpounder of the
Will is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the
Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the
relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that
he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put
his signature to the document on his own free Will and
document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting
witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its
execution. This is the mandate of Section 68 of the Evidence
Act and the position remains the same even in a case where
the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of
the document in the written statement.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
14. Thus, it is submitted that the principles laid down in the above case
is that a Will shall not be used as evidence until it is proved in the manner
prescribed under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, even if the opposite party
has not specifically denied the execution of the Will.
15.The further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is
that, the burden of establishing the execution of the Will without reasonable
doubt is upon those propounding the Will.
16.In this regard, he had made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kartar Kaur and Anr. vs. Milkho and Ors., reported in 1996
(1) SCC 626, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as here under:
''In a suit by heirs of deceased person to declare
that the alleged Will of the deceased whereby they are
deprived of the succession to his estate, is a forgery, the
burden of establishing without reasonable doubt that the
Will propounded is of the deceased is upon those
propounding the Will.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
17.The learned counsel also relied upon the following judgement by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant Kaur vs. Amritkaur, reported in AIR
1977 SC 74
''In cases were the execution of a Will is shrouded in
suspicion, its proof ceases to be simple is between the
plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally is an adversary
proceedings becomes in such cases a matter of the Cour's
conscience and then the true question which for
consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder
of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court
that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is
impossible to reach satisfaction unless the party which sets
up the Will of his a cogent and convincing explanation of the
suspicious circumstances of the surrounding the making of
the Will.''
18.It is clear from the above decisions that Section 68 of the Evidence
Act is mandatory for proof of Will and the burden of establishing the Will
without reasonable doubt is upon those persons propounding the Will.
19.Whether the above principles is applicable to the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
circumstances of the present case has to be considered. If we analyse the
evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the arguments put-forth by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff cannot be accepted for the following reason.
The plaintiff has admitted in the plaint and in his evidence that during the life
time of his father, he executed a Will dated 21.07.1993 registered as
Document No.231/1993 in which his father had bequeathed the ''A'' schedule
property situated at old No.95, New Door No.109, Kamatchi Amman Koil,
Puducherry in favour of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant. He further admitted
that his father had also allotted the ''B'' schedule property namely old No.12
new old No.16 Nehru Street, Kadirkamam oulgaret commune in favour of the
defendants 1 & 2. Therefore, it is not as though the plaintiff was not aware of
the Will. His only contention is that taking advantage of his absence, the 3rd
defendant had influenced the father Sachidanandam to execute the said Will.
During the cross examination, the plaintiff has stated that at the time of
execution of Will on 21.07.1993 his father was not keeping good health.
However, the above fact was not mentioned in the plaint averments.
Admittedly, the father of the parties died on 05.10.1997 and even according
to the plaintiff the Will came into operation on 05.10.1997. The defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
contention is that the said execution of the Will was within the knowledge of
the plaintiff. During the cross examination of the 3rd defendant, by the
plaintiff, the 3rd defendant had categorically stated the plaintiff and his wife
were present at the time of execution of the Will. This fact was not denied by
the plaintiff. It was not even suggested to the above witness that the plaintiff
and his wife were not present at the time of the execution of the said Will. In
fact, after taking their respective portions as per the terms of the Will, the
plaintiff has issued no objection letter dated 06.04.2000 to the Electricity
Department to change the service connection in the name of the 3rd defendant
in the portion allotted to him. The above fact was not denied by the plaintiff
during his cross examination. He had also admitted that the suit ''A'' Schedule
property had been already divided and the Municipal Authority has assigned
two separate Door Nos.109 and 109-A respectively to the plaintiff and 3rd
defendant. But he simply denied that he was not aware of the fact that who is
paying the tax to the portion allotted to him. He had also admitted his
signature in Ex.B.19 consent letter signed by him for changing the Electricity
connection in the portion allotted to the 3rd defendant. Even the witness
examined by the plaintiff as P.W.2, categorically admitted the allotment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
''A'' schedule property to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant and also the
allotment of ''B'' schedule property to the defendants 1 &2. But, he would
state that the properties were not divided by metes and bounds. This
deposition of P.W.2 cannot be accepted for the reason that if the properties
were not divided by metes and bounds, mutation of Revenue records and the
change of Electricity connection would not have taken place. On the other
hand, the defendants 1 & 2 examined as D.W.1 & D.W.2, marked Exs.B.2 to
B.4, the tax receipt, the Electricity demand bill in the name of plaintiff and
encumbrance certificate relating to the document executed by the 3 rd
defendant in favour of Repco Bank. From the above documents, it is clearly
seen that the ''A'' Schedule property has been divided with respective
boundaries enjoyed by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. The documents
Exs.B.9 to B.26, namely the Electricity and Water consumption receipts in
the name of the plaintiff and defendants, the undertaking and consent letter
given by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant to the Electricity Department, the
Municipal Tax demands would goes to show that the Will was acted upon
and accordingly suit properties were divided among the parties as per the
terms of the Will. Regarding the legal proposition, the existence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
document is one fact and execution of the document is a different fact. In
order to rely on a Will, not only its existence but, its due execution should
also be proved. However, the requirement to prove the Will, will arise when
execution is disputed. In the instant case, during the course of evidence, and
in the plaint averments, the existence and the execution of the Will had been
admitted by the plaintiff. At no point of time the plaintiff has denied the
existence and the execution of the Will. Above all, the Will has been acted
upon by the parties concerned which is evidenced by mutation of Revenue
records. When the existence and execution of Will has not been questioned
by the plaintiff in the plaint, the question arises whether it is necessary to
prove the Will under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. This was
considered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in AIR 1990 Kerala
226 [Thayyullathil Kunhikannan and others vs. Thayyullathil Kalliani and
others] wherein it was held under:
''Order 8 Rule 5 of the CPC provides that unless there
is a specific denial of any allegation of fact made in the
plaint, it shall be taken to be admitted. Section 58 of the
Evidence Act provides that no fact need be proved in any
proceedings, which by any rule of pleadings in force at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
time, the parties are deemed to have admitted by their
pleadings. In this case, in the absence of any denial in the
written statement, the genuineness and the validity of the Will
must be deemed to have been admitted by the law of
pleadings, namely Order 8 Rule 5, and therefore, that fact
was not required to be proved at the trial. Section 68 states
that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall
not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least
has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if
there be an attesting witness alive. The proviso to the Section
which was introduced by the amending Act 31 of 1926 makes
an exception in the case of any document, not being a Will,
which has been registered, unless its execution by the
persons by whom it purports to have been executed,is
specifically denied. The fact that the proviso is not applicable
to Wills and that it does not make an exception in the case of
registered Wills, does not lead to any inference that a Will
cannot be acted upon or used as evidence, unless it has been
proved by examining and attesting witness. The only effect of
the proviso is that registration of the Will by itself does nto
obviate the necessity of calling an attesting witness to prove
it, if it is otherwise required to be proved. The proviso does
not speak of a case where a Will is not in dispute. Section 68
relates to those documents which require to be proved at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
trial of a Suit. If by any Rule of law or of pleadings, such
proof is not required. Section 68 cannot operate to insist on
formal proof by calling an attesting witness. Section 58 has
to be read as overriding section 68 and as obviating the
necessity for calling an attesting witness, unless the
execution of the Will or the attestation is in dispute. In the
absence of any such plea in the written statement, it will be
the height of technically and waster of judicial time to insist
on examination of an attesting witness, before a Will could
be used as evidence. Phipson on Evidence 12th Edition (1976)
explains the ratinale behind examining an attesting witness
as that he is the witness appointed or agreed upon by the
parties to speak to the circumstances of its execution, ''an
agreement which may be waived for the purposes of
dispensing with proof at the trial.'' (paragraph 1751). In
paragraph 1757, the learned author points out that proof of
execution of documents required by law to be attested is
dispensed with (although the attesting witness may be alive
and in Court) ''when the execution has been admitted for the
purposes of trial.'' Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C deems the execution
of the Will to be admitted in the absence of any denial thereof
in the written statement. Examination of any attesting witness
is therefore unnecessary when the parties have not joined
issue on the validity or genuineness of the Will.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
20.A reading of the above said decision clearly shows that the
examination of an attesting witness to a Will is unnecessary when the parties
have not joined issue on the validity or genuineness of the Will. As pointed
out above, the validity and genuineness of Ex.A-1 Will was not at all in issue
in the above suit. Therefore, as laid down in the above said decision, the
examination of one of the attesting witness to Ex.A.1 Will is not necessary.
21.Again in S.Kaliyammal Vs. K.Palaniammal reported in AIR 1999
(Madras) 40 the learned Judge of this Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment
has observed as follows:
22.''I am of the opinion that, only when the execution of the Will is
denied by a party, then the burden is on the party who relies upon the Will to
prove the execution of the same. When the execution is not denied, it is
unnecessary to compel the person who relies upon the document to let in
evidence to establish the execution, since the admitted facts need not be
proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
23.The above decision case clearly lays down the principle that when
execution of Will has not been specifically denied, examination of attesting
witness to a Will is unnecessary. In so far as, the decision case relied upon by
the learned counsel for the plaintiff in Ramesh Verma stated supra, this
Court in Boomathi (Died) & Others vs. Murugesan (Died) & others reported
in 2023 2 LW 162 observed as follows:
Para 26. In this Context, it would be relevant to refer to
Sections 17 an d58 of the Indian Evidence Act:-
17. Admission defined – An admission is a
statement, [oral documentary or contained in
electronic form], which suggests any inference as to
any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by
any of the persons, and under the circumstances,
hereinafter mentioned.
''58 Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact
need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties
thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing,
or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by
any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have
admitted by their pleadings: provided that the Court
may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be
proved otherwise than by such admissions.''
(27) Applying the definition of 'admission' as
set out in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, if
Sections 56 to 58 are applied, it leads to the only
conclusion that facts that are admitted, whether it is
in oral or documentary form, are not required to be
proved.
As already mentioned herein above, proof
would become warranted only in cases where
execution of the Will has not been admitted, say in
cases where execution is specifically denied or not
specifically denied.
33. This Court has applied its mind to the
various principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court and other High Courts,
especially in this context of Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, proof of a Will where execution is not
specifically denied and in cases where the execution is
categorically admitted. The ratio laid down by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Verma's case
[cited supra] reported in 201791) SCC 257, cannot
be a precedent for the proposition where the opposite
party clearly admits to the execution of the subject
Will as in the instant case. Therefore, we are not in
respectful agreement within the judgments in
P.Malliga's case and Akkinirajan's case [cited supra]
following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jagdish Chand Sharma's case. On the
contrary, we approve the ratio laid down in P.Radha
vs. Irudayadoss and Others reported in 2022 2 L.W.
124 = 2022 SCC Online Mad 886 and Vanjiammal
and Others vs. Viday and Others in the order dated
21.04.2017 made in CRP.[PD] No.3659/2013. Hence,
the point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.
24. The above decision case squarely applies to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff neither in the plaint nor in his
evidence has stated that the Will was executed in a suspicious circumstances
or questioned its genuinity. Therefore, the question of proving the execution
of the Will by the defendant do not arise. Instead, the plaintiff categorically
admitted the existence and execution of the Will and also took possession of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
the portion allotted to him as per the terms of the Will. The Revenue records
and the Electricity and Water bills (Ex.B.1 to B.23) in the name of the
plaintiff and the 3rd defendant would goes to show that the plaintiff and the
3rd defendant are in actual possession and enjoyment of the portion allotted to
them as per the terms of the Will. Moreover even according to the plaintiff,
the Will was executed in the year 21.07.1993. The above suit was filed only
in the year 2013. There is no explanation on the side of the plaintiff for the
delay in filing the suit. It would only show that the plaintiff has accepted the
Will and for the reason best known to him, the plaintiff had approached this
Court belatedly. Therefore, when the Will is not potentially denied, there is
no need for the propounder of the Will to prove the same.
25.Therefore, I am of the opinion that, only when the execution of the
Will is denied by a party, then the burden is on the party who relies upon the
Will to prove the execution of the same as per Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act 1972. Once, the Will is found to be genuine then it has to be
held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the suit. Therefore, I
answer all the points framed in the first appeal in favour of the
respondents/defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
26.In the result, the first appeal is dismissed with cost. The decree and
the judgement of the Trial Court in O.S.No.40 of 2013 is confirmed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.04.2023
vsn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.321 of 2016
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
vsn
PRE- DELIVERY JUDGEMENT MADE IN
A.S.No.321 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.4082 of 2017
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
