Allowed

R.S.Krishnan (alias) Krishnan Ramanathapuram Subramaniam v. Aruna Prabhu alias Aruna Subramaniam

Madras HC1 Oct 2020OP/512/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an original petition filed by the executor of a deceased's will seeking probate. Evidence from attesting witnesses established the will was executed in sound mind, and the bequest to the wife was successfully passed to the petitioner as the wife had predeceased the testator.

What did the court decide?

Probate of the will is granted, effective limited to the state of Tamil Nadu; the original petition is allowed.

R.S.Krishnan (alias) Krishnan Ramanathapuram… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.No.512 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

O.P.No.512 of 2019

¶7

R.S.Krishnan (alias)
Krishnan Ramanathauram Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Vs
Aruna Prabhu (alias) Aruna Subramaniam ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Original Petition filed under Section 222 & 276 of Indian Succession

¶9

Act, 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 4 of Original Side Rules praying that the petitioner may be allowed to prove the Will in common form and that the probate thereof to have effect limited to the state of Tamilnadu may be granted to the petitioner. .

¶10

This petition has been filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the

¶11

Indian Succession Act 1925 and under Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

1/5

¶14

O.P.No.512 of 2019

¶15

Rules for Probate of Will.

¶16

The Executor of the Will of Late K.Subramaniam is the petitioner

¶17

before this Court. The petitioner would contend in this petition that the petitioner apart from being the Executor of the Will of Late K.Subramanim is also his son and the respondent, the daughter. The petitioner would submit that K.Subramaniam who died on 16.09.2018 was possessed the properties within the State of Tamil Nadu and within the Jurisdiction of this Court. The said K.Subramaniam had executed a Will at Chennai on 10.01.2016 in the presence of witnesses whose signatures are also appended in the foot of the Will. In the Will, the petitioner was named as the Executor and the Testator also named his wife Meenakshi @ Meenakshi Subramaniam @ Lalitha as the Co-executor. However, the said Meenakshi @ Meenakshi Subramaniam @ Lalitha died on 15.05.2016 and therefore, the present petition is filed by the petitioner alone. At the time of his death, the deceased Testator has left behind him surviving the petitioner and the respondent alone as his legal representatives. Therefore, the present petition is filed for grant of probate by the petitioner.

¶18

The respondent though served had not entered appearance. The

¶19

petitioner was examined through Video-Conferencing on 17.08.2020 and the http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

2/5

¶21

O.P.No.512 of 2019

¶22

following documents were marked as Ex.P1-Death Certificate of Late K.Subramaniam and Ex.P2-Affidavit of Assets. Thereafter, one of the attesting witnesses Mr.V.Karthikeyan was examined as PW.2 and through him the Will was marked as Ex.P3. The witness clearly deposed to the fact that K.Subramaniam was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will and that the Will was executed by the deceased in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the Testator had seen the attesting witnesses put their signature to the said Will.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would

¶24

submit that the attesting witness has deposed to the fact that the execution of the Will was done by the Testator in the sound and disposing state of mind, the petitioner has proved the execution of the Will. Therefore, he may be granted the probate.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the oral

¶26

and documentary evidence as well as the deposition.

¶27

The Testator Late K.Subramaniam had executed Ex.P3-Will at

¶28

Chennai, in which, he had clearly deposed to the fact that he was not making any http://www.judis.nic.in 3/5

¶29

O.P.No.512 of 2019

¶30

bequest in favour of his daughter due to strained relationship. Under the Will, the properties were bequeathed on the wife of the Testator and in case the wife predeceased Testator then all of the proprieties fall to the share of the petitioner.

¶31

From the records, it is seen that the wife of the Testator had predeceased her husband and therefore in keeping with the recitals of the Ex.P3Will, the properties fell to the share of the petitioner. The attesting witness who has been examined as PW.2 has deposed with regard to the sound disposing state of mind of the Testator and the fact that both the attesting witnesses had witnessed the Testator putting his signature to the Will. Therefore, the WillEx.P3 has been proved in the manner known to law. The probate as sought for is granted. The Original Petition stands allowed.

¶32

01.10.2020. Internet : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking lpp

¶33

P.T. ASHA. J,

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

4/5

O.P.No.512 of 2019

lpp

O.P.No.512 of 2019

01.10.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

5/5

R.S.Krishnan (alias) Krishnan Ramanathapuram Subramaniam v. Aruna Prabhu alias Aruna Subramaniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Krishnan (alias) Krishnan Ramanathapuram Subramaniam v. Aruna Prabhu alias Aruna Subramaniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajalakshmi W/o.Dr.a.B.Selvarangan and another Vs S.Balasubramani s/o.Dr.a.B.Selvarangan

M/S Pavalai Kalynasundara Mudaliar Trust and 2 Others Vs No Respondent

S.Sridhar and another Vs S.Sivashanmugam and 3 others

R.S.Krishnan (alias) Krishnan Ramanathapuram Subramaniam Vs Aruna Prabhu (alias) Aruna Subramaniam

D.Vijaya Kumar and Another Vs Uma Sarguru

G.Paul Pandian S/o.Gurusamy Nadar Vs a.v.Radhakrishnan and 4 others