Allowed

Mr.M.Maheswaran v. M/s.M.Bharathi

Madras HC9 Sept 2022OP/241/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants probate of the Will of G. Madhavan. The petitioner, the son of the deceased, was appointed sole executor. Estimating that the attesting witnesses had died, the petitioner examined the mother as an identification witness. In the absence of opposition by the respondents and lack of suspicious circumstances, the court granted probate.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is allowed and Probate of the Will of G. Madhavan dated 10.03.1983 is granted.

Mr.M.Maheswaran Vs M/s.M.Bharathi — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

O.P.No.241 of 2019

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

¶4

This petition has been filed under Order XXV Rule 4 of O.S.Rules read with Section 222 and 276 of Indian Succession Act,1925 for the grant

¶5

of Probate in respect of the last Will of G.Madhavan.

¶6

The petitioner is the son of Late G.Madhavan. The first respondent

¶7

is his mother. The second and third respondents are the sisters of the petitioner. The fourth and fifth respondents are the grand daughters of the first respondent.

¶8

It is stated that G.Madhavan died on 18.03.2000 and had left behind a Will dated 10.03.1983. The petitioner is his son had been appointed as sole executor. The petition has been filed to grant porbate of the Will.

¶9

The respondents have filed their consent affidavits. The petitioner was invited to adduce evidence. He examined himself as PW-1. Ex.P-1 was the registered Will dated 10.03.1983. Ex.P-2 was the death certificate of G.Madhavan. Ex.P-3 was the copy of the legal heirship certificate. The consent affidavits given by the respondents had been marked as Exs. P-6 to P-8.

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

¶12

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

¶13

vsg

¶14

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires that at least one of

¶15

the attesting witness should be examined. However, the petitioner had come to Court claiming that the attesting witnesses have died.

¶16

In view of that particular fact, he had chosen to examine as RW-1

¶17

the first respondent / mother, who identified the signature of the deceased G.Madhavan and her evidence had been recorded as RW-1. In view of the fact that the signature of the deceased had been identified though not in total conformity with Section 69 which stipulates that in the absence of the attestor anybody, who can speak to the writing of the attestors should be examined, still, since the respondents have also not raised any objection and have granted consent for the probate and there are no suspicious circumstances pointed out by any of the parties, I would grant probate of the Will as sought for in this Petition.

¶18

Accordingly, this Original Petition is allowed.

¶19

09.09.2022

¶20

vsg

¶21

O.P.No.241 of 2019

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.M.Maheswaran v. M/s.M.Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Maheswaran v. M/s.M.Bharathi

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

R.Mallika alias Vimala and another Vs K.Sumanth Reddy and 2 others

Cipla Limited Vs M/s.Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cipla Limited

Kalyani v.Srinivasan Vs Suresh Srinivasan and Another

M/S Arc Internaitonal Fertility and Research Centre, Vs M/S Splus Media Pvt. Ltd.

S.R.Vashanthkrishnan Vs Mahalakshmi