Appeal against refusal of probate. High Court upheld trial court's finding that propounder failed to prove execution of will under S. 69 Evidence Act because he did not prove handwriting of attesting witness, only testator's signature.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
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.
CMA(MD)No.426 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.02.2022 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA(MD)No.426 of 2005
Jebakumar
1.Jebakani Ammal (Died) 2.Josebel Emerald
... Appellant/Petitioner vs.
...2nd Respondents/2nd Respondents
3.Rajaiah Solomon
4.Dhanam Manuel
5.Jeyasingh 6.Thomas 7.Kasthuribai
8.Sornam ... Respondents
(R3 to R8 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide order dated 21.07.2017 in M.P.(MD)Nos.2 & 3/2011 in CMA(MD) No.426/2005).
Appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.09.2004 in Probate O.P.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan For R2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R3 to R8 : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in Probate O.P.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin, is on appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Original Petition, wherein, he sought for probate for the registered Will dated 26.09.1984 said to have been executed by one Gnanakkan Nadar.
1/3
CMA(MD)No.426 of 2005
respondent/Jebakani Ammal has been declared to be the wife of Gnanakkan Nadar in O.S.No.6 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.
''69.Proof where no attesting witness found.—If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.''
2/3
CMA(MD)No.426 of 2005
69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the circumstances, the trial Court has come to a just conclusion in rejecting the claim for probate.
Assistant Registrar (W)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
bala
To
The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.
Copy to
The Section Officer, V.R.Section, (2C) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
+1 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-6097[F] dated 15/02/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-6241[F] dated 15/02/2022 )
CMA(MD)No.426 of 2005 DATED : 14.02.2022
SE(CO) KB(08.03.2022) 3P 5C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence of PW3 sufficiently proved the execution of the will under Section 69 of the Evidence Act since only the testator's signature was proven and the attesting witness's attestation wa
Whether the trial court correctly rejected the probate petition for failure to satisfy requirements of Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Jebakumar
Jebakani Ammal
Josebel Emerald
Rajaiah Solomon
Dhanam Manuel
Jeyasingh Thomas
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
