This appeal challenged the remission of a suit for fresh disposal regarding a Will. The High Court held that since the Will's execution was not proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the trial court could not have decided its nature. Consequently, the appellate court was justified in remitting the suit.
The appeal is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/26TH PHALGUNA, 1936
FAO (RO).No. 52 of 2015 ()
AS 347/2011 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT:
SUKUMARAN
S/O. M.R.KUTTAN, MATTUMMAN VEEDU, KANHIKULAM PALAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS 3 TO 6:
W/O. K.GANGADHARAN, PANAMTHODIKA VEEDU, KAVILPAD AMSOM
PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678001.
W/O. CHAMI, VALIYAKULANGARA VEEDU
KODUMTHIRAPPULLY AMSOM
PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678014.
3. MURALIDHARAN
S/O. VARANI PADMAVATHI, AKKARAKKAD HOUSE
KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD TALUK-678651.
S/O. VARANI PADMAVATHI, AKKARAKKAD HOUSE
KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD TALUK-678651.
D/O. VARANI PADMAVATHI, AKKARAKKAD HOUSE
KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD TALUK-678651.
FAO (RO).No. 52 of 2015
S/O. LATE RATHNAM, KOOTTAPURA VEEDU, KALUR AMSOM PALAKKAD TALUK-678008.
D/O. LATE RATHNAM, KOOTTAPURA VEEDU, KALUR AMSOM PALAKKAD TALUK-678008.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
F.A.O.(R.O.) No.52 of 2015
Dated 17th March, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
The decision of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Palakkad in A.S.No.347 of 2011 dated 8.12.2014, by which the suit O.S.No.377 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Palakkad was remitted for fresh disposal, is under challenge in this appeal. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants.
2
F.A.O.(R.O.) No.52 of 2015
Ratnam. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the said Will. As per Ext.A1 Will, a life interest was created in favour of Kuttan over the properties held by the first defendant and a life interest was created in favour of the first defendant over the properties held by Kuttan. Kuttan died on 9.4.1996. The case of the plaintiffs is that in the nature of Ext.A1 Will, after the death of Kuttan, the first defendant has no right to make any change in the disposition and she can only enjoy the life interest over the properties. According to them, at the instance of the second defendant, the first defendant had sold the trees in the plaint schedule properties for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and is attempting to sell the plaint schedule property.
3
F.A.O.(R.O.) No.52 of 2015
manner she likes.
4
F.A.O.(R.O.) No.52 of 2015
Ext.A1 Will. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court and hence this appeal.
F.A.O.(R.O.) No.52 of 2015
5
justified in setting aside the decision of the trial court and remitting the suit for fresh disposal.
There is no merit in the appeal and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs
(true copy)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in deciding the nature of the Will when its execution had not been proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukumaran
Vijayalakshmi
M.K. Krishnaveni
Muralidharan
Devan
Sushma
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
