Allowed

K.Balasubramaniam v. K.S.Anantha Narayanan and Another

Madras HC22 Sept 2023OP/491/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the original petition seeking proof of a registered will in common form. Upon examination of the Will and evidence by the petitioner, the Court found the execution valid under the Indian Succession Act and granted probate limited to Tamil Nadu.

What did the court decide?

Probate of the last will and testament dated 04.03.2021 of the late D. Ramaswami was granted to the petitioner, effective in the State of Tamil Nadu.

K.Balasubramaniam Vs K.S.Anantha Narayanan and… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

O.P.No.491 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

O.P.No.491 of 2022

¶7

K.Balasubramaniam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. K.S.Anantha Narayanan 2. K.Vaijayanthi ... Respondents

¶10

Original Petition is filed under Section 222 & 276 of the Indian

¶11

Succession Act, 1925 and under Order XXV, Rule 4 of Original Side Rules, to prove the Will in common form, and that probate thereof, to have effect limited to the State of TamilNadu.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kamaraj

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Original Petition has been filed under Section 222 & 276 of the

¶15

Indian Succession Act, 1925 and under Order XXV, Rule 4 of Original Side Rules seeking to prove the Will in common form, and that probate thereof, to have effect limited to the State of TamilNadu.

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

O.P.No.491 of 2022

¶19

2.The averments in the petition are as follows:-

¶20

The petition mentioned movable and immovable assets described in the originally belonged to one Ramaswami who died on 23.07.2021. His wife Kamala predeceased him on 23.10.2015. During the life time of Ramaswami, he had executed a registered will dated 04.03.2021 bequeathing his movable and immovable assets in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 by appointing the petitioner as executor of the will.

¶21

The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P7 were marked.

¶22

Ex.P1 is the sale deed dated 03.09.1959 executed in favour of D.Ramasamy. Ex.P2 is the supplementary deed dated 17.08.1960 executed in favour of Ramasamy. From Ex.P.3-death certificate of T.Kamala, it is seen that the wife of the testator predeceased him. Ex.P5 is the death certificate of Ramasamy. The 2^nd respondent had given her consent in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

5. P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that himself and the other attestor by

¶24

name C.Srinivasan who is examined as P.W.2 were present at the time when

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

O.P.No.491 of 2022

¶28

the Will was executed and he had seen the testator affixing his signature in their presence. He further stated that the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution. He further deposed that he and C.Srinivasan affixed their signatures in the Will in the presence of the attestors.

¶29

6. The evidences of PW.1 and PW.2 and the documents available on record would show that the Will has been executed as per the terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Successions Act and the same has been proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents have no objection to grant probate in favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had proved the genuineness of the Will in which he had been appointed as executor of the Will, the relief sought shall be granted.

¶30

7 . In the result, the Original Petition is allowed by granting probate of

¶31

the last Will and Testament dated 04.03.2021 of late D.Ramaswami to the petitioner to have effect limited throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶32

22.09.2023

¶33

bkn

¶34

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

3/5

O.P.No.491 of 2022

APPENDIX

Petitioner's witness:

¶39

P.W.1 – K.Balasubramaniam

¶40

P.W.2 – C.Srinivasan

¶41

Respondent's witness:

¶42

R.W.1 – K.S.Anantha Narayanan R.W.2 – K.K.Vaijayanthi Documents marked:

¶43

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
P1	Photocopy of the sale deed dated 03.09.1959 executed in favour of Mr.D.Ramasamy
P2	Photocopy of the supplemental deed to Ex.P.1 dated 17.08.1960 executed in favour of Mr.D.Ramasamy
P3	Computer generated death certificate of Dr.T.Kamala
P4	Original Will dated 04.03.2021 executed by Mr.D.Ramasamy
P5	Computer generated death certificate of Mr.D.Ramasamy
P6	Photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card
P7	Affidavit of assets showing the net value of estate of Rs.1,04,32,156/-

¶44

bkn

¶45

22.09.2023

¶46

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

4/5

O.P.No.491 of 2022

R.N.MANJULA, J.

bkn

O.P.No.491 of 2022

¶52

22.09.2023

¶53

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

¶54

5/5

K.Balasubramaniam v. K.S.Anantha Narayanan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balasubramaniam v. K.S.Anantha Narayanan and Another

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.Balasubramani @ Balasubramaniyan and Another Vs No Respondent

D.Prema Kumari Vs Gowri and 5 Others

Mrs.D.Sheela Navaroji and Another Vs S.Rajeswari and 2 Others

S.Jayashanker alias Jayashanker Sharma Vs Poornima Raina alias Poornima

R.Sathyanarayanan Vs S.Jayashanker alias Jayashanker Sharma

M/S.Rajeswari Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Intec Capital Ltd.