Allowed

Gayatri Joshi v. Neeraj Bansal

Madras HC4 Jan 2024OP/348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted Probate of the Last Will of deceased Saroj Sharma in favour of her daughters (petitioners). The respondent, the deceased's husband, had no objection. Evidence established valid execution and attestation under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

What did the court decide?

Grant of Certiorari and Probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Saroj Sharma in favour of the petitioners.

Gayatri Joshi Vs Neeraj Bansal — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶2

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶3

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶4

This petition has been filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order XXV, Rule 5 of O.S. Rules, for the grant of Probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Saroj Sharma.

¶5

Originally the property was owned by the deceased Saroj Sharma and the respondent. The deceased is having 50% of share in the properties. As far as the said 50% is concerned, the deceased has executed a registered will dated 23.07.2010 bequeathing the properties in favour of the petitioners, who are the daughters of the deceased. The testatrix died on 0712.2020. The husband of the testatrix predeceased her on 14.01.1996. The respondent has been examined as R.W.1. and he has stated that he has no objection for grant of probate to the petitioners. There is no other kin or persons interested who has to be impleaded. The amount of assets which is 1/5

¶6

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

¶7

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶8

likely to come into the petitioners' hands does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and the net amount of the assets, after deducting all items which the petitioner is by law allowed to deduct is of the value of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The petitioners undertake to duly administer the property and credits of the deceased Saroj Sharma and in any way concerning the Will by paying first her debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof to the Court within six months from the date of grant of Probate to the petitioners and also to render to this Court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date.

¶9

The first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and she had narrated the averments made in the petition stating that the petitioners have filed this petition for the grant of probate in their favour in respect of the Last Will and Testament executed by the testator on 23.07.2010. Ex.P.1 is the computer generated death certificate of the deceased Ms.Saroj Sharma. Ex.P2 is the computer generated legal heirship certificate of the deceased. Ex.P3 is filed to prove that the husband of the deceased pre-deceased her.

¶10

2/5

¶11

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

¶12

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶13

Ex.P4 is the original Will executed by the deceased Saroj Sharma. The deceased has executed the Will on 23.07.2010. Ex.P5 is the consent affidavit given by the respondent. Exs.P5 to P8 are the certified copy of the sale deeds.

¶14

The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and he had narrated the averments made in the petition stating that he has no objection in grant of probate to the petitioners.

¶15

The second attestor of the Will dated 23.07.2010 has been examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the testatrix executed her last Will and Testament on 23.07.2010 in his presence and in the presence of Mr.Vivek Kaura and at the request of the testatrix, the said Mr.Vivek Kaura and P.W.2 have subscribed their signatures in the presence of the testator. He has further deposed that while executing the Will, the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and in his presence the attesting witnesses subscribed their signature in the Will. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 not only prove execution but also attestation of the Will

¶16

3/5

¶17

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

¶18

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶19

and there is no other materials to suspect the Will.

¶20

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶21

dhk

¶22

In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the petitioners have proved the execution and attestation of the Will. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the issuance of probate in their favour.

¶23

The Original Petition is ordered. Grant probate of the Will in respect of the petitioners.

04.01.2024

O.P.No.348 of 2022

4/5

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

¶28

O.P.No.348 of 2022

¶29

5/5

¶30

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

Gayatri Joshi v. Neeraj Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri Joshi v. Neeraj Bansal

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

A.Arul Mozhi Shivam Vs Socio Economic Service Society

S.Nakkeeran Vs a.Arul Mozhi Shivam and 4 Others

Nirmal Bhurath and 6 others Vs Shree Chandraprabhumaharaj Juna Jain Mandir Trust and 2 others

P.K.Vallikumaran Vs a.P.Maikandan

Apsara Reddy Vs Joe Micheal Praveen and another

K.R.Dhathatreyan and 4 Others Vs No Respondent