In D. Rajendiran vs D. Kumararaj, [Second Appeal No.141 of 2019] the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that a Will cannot be proved by admission of parties but it can only be done by examining the attesting witness. Moreover, the Court reiterated that where there is a cloud of doubt over the title of the property, a bare injunction cannot be granted.
CASE SUMMARY
Brief Facts:
The second appeal was preferred against the judgement and decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Puducherry confirming the Judgement and decree of the Court of the Principal District Munsif at Puducherry. The case involves a property dispute between two brothers, D. Rajendiran (the Appellant) and D. Kumararaj (the Respondent), concerning the inheritance of their late mother’s property. The dispute arose from conflicting claims over the validity of two Wills—one allegedly executed by their father Dhandapanisamy Chettiar in 1988 and another by their mother, Krishnaveni Ammal in 2000.
The Respondent (Plaintiff in the original suit) filed a suit seeking a prohibitory injunction against the Appellant to prevent interference with his possession of the disputed property. Additionally, he sought a declaration that the Will dated April 28, 2000 purportedly executed by Krishnaveni Ammal was null and void.
The Respondent initially filed a suit (O.S. No. 587 of 2005) in the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry. The court ruled in favour of the Respondent, declaring that the Will dated 28. 04. 2000 was null and void, effectively recognizing the Respondent’s claim to the property.
Thereafter, dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant challenged the decision before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry. The first appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling in favour of the Respondent. This culminated into the second appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court.
Key Issues:
(a)Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the Will of Dhandapanisamy Chettiar and Krishnaveni Ammal dated 30.09.1988 were proved by admission ?
(b)Whether the suit for declaration that the Will executed by the mother as null and void and for permanent injunction can be maintained without the plaintiff seeking for the relief of declaration of title?
High Court's Analysis and Findings:
1. Proof of a Will by admission
The High Court emphasized that the proof of a Will must be in strict compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates the examination of at least one attesting witness to prove a Will. The court found that the lower courts had incorrectly concluded that the Will was proven based on the Appellant’s (Defendant in the original suit) admission, which is not an acceptable method for proving a Will under civil law.
2. Declaration of Title
The High Court observed that the Respondent had failed to prove possession of the property. Further, because the Appellant had denied the Respondent’s title, the court ruled that the Respondent was required to seek a declaration of title along with the injunction. The court highlighted that when title is in dispute, merely seeking an injunction without a declaration of title is insufficient.
3. Power to dispose of the properties by testator
The High Court found that as the property was the self-acquired by Dhandapanisamy Chettiar, he had the power to dispose of the property by way of testament under section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, Mrs. Krishnaveni Ammal obtained the property only as a life estate holder thus she has no right, title or interest over the property to execute a Will, as a life estate holder.
4. Denial of relief
The High Court stated that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the property, the courts below erred in granting a decree for injunction and the court stated that the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title when a cloud is created over his title. But the prayer sought for is entirely within the discretion of the counsel who drafted the plaint. For the fault of the counsel the court was not inclined to dismiss the suit in full.
Judgement:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The case was remanded for further proceedings, particularly to address the issues of possession and title. The High Court’s judgment underscored the importance of proper legal procedures in proving Wills and the necessity of seeking a declaration of title when ownership of the suit property is contested. The learned District Munsif at Puducherry was directed to enable the Plaintiff to file an application for amendment of the plaint seeking for the declaration of title and for injunction within a period of eight weeks.
Date of the judgment: 28.06.2024
Case laws referred:
Anathula Sudhakar -vs- P.Buchi Reddy (AIR 2008 SC 2033)
G.Subashini -vs- P.Lakshmi Bai (1987 (100) LW 489)
Counsels:
For Appellant : Mr. K. Krishnan for Mrs. P. Veena Suresh
For Respondent : Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi Senior Counsel for Mr. L. Palanimuthu
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece. The case law was summarised by our intern, Mr. Shrihariharan pursuing final year law at the School of Law, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Deemed to be University.)
Comments