Paneerselvam @ Nellappan (Died) v. Amsavalli

Madras HC8 Dec 2025AS/521/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proof of Will; registered Will presumption of genuineness; Section 63(c) Indian Succession Act 1925 attestation; Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872 / Section 69 BSA; attesting witnesses DW-2, DW-3; scribe DW-4; two Wills shown alternately in cross-examination (Ex.A-6 dated 03.06.1997 vs Ex.B-1 dated 08.05.2003); unclean hands of plaintiffs claiming intestacy; preliminary decree of partition set aside; Madras High Court Division Bench; Cuddalore FTC-2; Metpalli Lasum Bai; Meena Pradhan; Ramesh Chand.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court set aside; no order as to costs. ¶153

Paneerselvam @ Nellappan (Died) Vs Amsavalli — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court set aside; no order as to costs.

¶153

Issue for consideration

Whether Ex.B-1, the Will dated 08.05.2003 executed by Subramania Mudaliar, had been proved in manner known to law (point arising in this appeal). +1 more

¶82

Court's answer

Despite DW-2 not inspiring full confidence, there was compliance with the stipulations required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act 1925: the attesting witnesses and the scribe spoke to execution of the Will; confusion from two Wills shown alternately in cross-examination and the lapse of nearly 8 years warranted some leverage to the witnesses.

¶140

Ratio / Principle

Ex.B-1 is a registered Will; though registration is not proof of the Will, a presumption about the genuineness of the Will could be drawn (applying Metpalli Lasum Bai).

¶141

Key takeaways

Apart from the earlier 1997 Will (unmentioned in the plaint and not marked by the plaintiffs), no other suspicious circumstances were raised; Ex.B-1 records that both respondents were married and sufficiently provided for.ratio¶145
Having sued on the footing that the father died intestate while producing Ex.A-6 (an earlier Will attributed to him), the respondents/plaintiffs approached the Court with unclean hands, which would non-suit them.ratio¶146
The learned Trial Judge misdirected himself regarding the evidence relating to proof of the Will and should not have rejected Ex.B-1 as not proved in manner known to law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition appeal (A.S.No. 521 of 2011, Madras High Court, C.V.Karthikeyan & K.Kumaresh Babu, JJ.) by defendants/brothers against a preliminary decree of partition in O.S.No. 149 of 2008 (Addl. District Judge, FTC-2, Cuddalore), where sisters claimed a half share on intestacy of their father Subramania Mudaliar. The defendants relied on a registered Will dated 08.05.2003 (Ex.D-1 at trial / Ex.B-1 in appeal) bequeathing the property to them. The trial court had held the Will unproved. Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench held that the attesting witnesses DW-2 and DW-3 and the scribe DW-4 together satisfied the attestation and proof requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (with reference to S.68 Evidence Act 1872 / S.69 BSA and Meena Pradhan and Ramesh Chand); confusion caused by showing two Wills (Ex.A-6 of 03.06.1997 and Ex.B-1) alternately in cross-examination and the lapse of nearly 8 years justified granting the witnesses leverage; registration of the Will raised a presumption of genuineness (Metpalli Lasum Bai applied); no real suspicious circumstances existed, and the plaintiffs, who pleaded intestacy yet produced an earlier Will, had approached the Court with unclean hands. Appeal allowed; trial court Judgment and Decree set aside; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 01.12.2025

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 08 .12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A.S.No. 521 of 2011

¶7

Paneerselvam @ Nellappan (died) S/o. Subramaniya Mudaliyar

¶8

Murugavel S/o. Subramaniya Mudaliyar

¶9

Thillaiyammal W/o. Paneerselvam

¶10

Subhashini W/o. Balamurugan

¶11

Anand

¶12

S/o. Pannerselvam

¶13

Suganya W/o. Prabhu

¶14

... Defendants/Appellants

¶15

A1 died. A3 to A6 are brought on record as LRS of deceased A1 vide Court oder dated 16.10.2025 made in C.M.P.No. 15877, 15878 of 2025 in A.S.No. 521/2011 (GJJ & MSKJ)

¶16

¶17

1/23

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Chelladurai(Died), 1. Dhavamani Vs Shahul Hameed

Chelladurai Vs Shahul Hameed

Mallika Vs Jeyakumar

K.Marannan @ Mani Vs Vatchala Devi

A.N.Radhakrishnan Vs N.Mani

R. Vikram, Vs S. Latha Maheswari alias Latha