Allowed

N.S.Srinivasan v. Razia M U @ Radha and 22 Others

Madras HC9 Aug 2024OP/199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probate petition under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act for a Will of a deceased Chennai resident. Petitioner and both attesting witnesses deposed to sound mind and due execution; respondents consented via affidavit. Court found statutory requirements satisfied and granted probate.

What did the court decide?

Probate of the Will dated 17.05.2019 directed to be issued to the petitioner.

N.S.Srinivasan Vs Razia M U @ Radha and 22 Others — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

O.P.No.199 of 2024

¶3

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.

¶4

This Original Petition has been filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the

¶5

Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 2, 4 of Original Side Rules seeking probate of a Will dated 17.05.2019 executed by Mrs.Saroja Balasubramanian.

¶6

The Testator, Mrs.Saroja Balasubramanian, mother of respondents No.1, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 22; Grandmother of respondents No.2 to 5,8,9,12,13,16,17,20 and 21; and Mother in Law of respondents No.7, 11, 15, 19 and 23, who was ordinarily resident at Flat No.2B, Second Floor, Kgeyes Arulagam, Old No.9, New No.15, Bishop Wallers Avenue East, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004 and was residing at the same address at the time of death on 06.11.2022 leaving behind respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 22 as her only surviving legal heirs.

¶7

The petitioner is a registered Chartered Accountant. The legal representatives of the said Saroja Balasubramanian which are said to have been executed in Ex.P1 and her death certificate is Ex.P2 indicates that she died on 06.11.2022. The legal heir certificate is Ex.P3 indicates that the respondents have been duly arrayed as the respondents R1 to R23.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

On application filed by the said petitioner, her evidence is recorded

¶11

through the video conferencing as per the order in A.No.3030 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024. Both the attestor are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.1 marked as Exs.P1 to P5 and P.W.2, K.R.Anandhakrishnan who is the one of the attestor of the Will deposed regarding the sound state of mind and good health at the time of execution Ex.P1 Will, and he also deposed that the said finding Ex.P1 Will, in person. At request he signed as a attestor and also stated about the second attestor namely Mrs.Meera K.Lakshminarasimhan who was examined as P.W.3 and stated that she is the mother in law of her employer and other concern and the evidence has been recorded she is executed as Ex.P1 Will and P.W.2 attestor and also she attested the same. All the contesting respondents are supported the affidavit.

¶12

From the documents filed, the parent documents are also filed. The affidavit of assets of the property covered under the Will was marked as Ex.P5 and the same was not objected by the respondents and in fact they also

¶13

gave a consent to cover those property under the Will by way of consent affidavit and the same is taken on record. Necessary certificate has also been given under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

6.Taking note of the documents filed and also the consent affidavit,

¶17

I find that the necessary ingredients of Section 63 of Hindu Succession Act

¶18

and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, I am inclined to grant this Original

¶19

Petition.

¶20

Taking the evidence into consideration and the documents produced,

¶21

the Original Petition stands allowed and the probate to be issued to the petitioner in accordance with rules.

¶22

09.08.2024

¶23

nvi

¶24

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶25

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

nvi

O.P.No.199 of 2024

09.08.2024

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

N.S.Srinivasan v. Razia M U @ Radha and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Srinivasan v. Razia M U @ Radha and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Kishore Kumar @ Guinness Kishore Vs the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce

Mrs.Hema Achyuthan and another Vs No Respondent

K.Vimala Vs D.Umamaheshwaran and another

K.Bharathi and Another Vs No Respondent

Ramkumar Ganesan Vs Santhi Narayanasamy and 6 Others

S.Velarasu and 3 Others Vs No Respondent