Swarnalatha & Ors v. Kalavathy & Ors

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Article 14 of Constitution of INdia and Indian Succession Act 1925

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Swarnalatha & Ors Vs Kalavathy & Ors Forum-Supreme Court of India Date- 30th March 2022 Sub-Dispute between Daughter and Daughter-in law -What can be the grounds for suspicion regarding execution of the Will when challenge is made by some of the legatees regarding the Will of Father/mother ( Father-in-law/mother-in-law for daughter-in-law) An interesting question arose in this case when a unregistered Will of mother and registered will of father in a family consisting of Father, mother, two sons and daughter, was subject matter of suspicion by the daughter and one son when the both the sons were given share in the both the Will leaving the daughter empty handed. Upon death of one of the son, to whom share was given in the estate, the probate was applied by the widow of this son and at this point of time, the daughter challenged that the will was not genuine and had been made on the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13840 of 2019) SWARNALATHA & ORS. ...APPELANT(S) VERSUS KALAVATHY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T V. Ramasubramanian 1. The probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother, having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act ”), one set of legatees claiming under the Will have come up with the above appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, learned senior counsel

7. Thereafter, the daughter Kalavathy and the surviving son V.M. Sivakumar (of the testators) filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Poonamallee. Upon coming to know of the same, the appellants herein who are the wife and sons of the eldest son V.M. Chandrasekaran filed a petition in probate O.P No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, under Sections 270, 276 and 289 of the Act for the grant of probate of the Wills of Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal. The petition was hotly contested by the daughter and other son of the testators. However, by a judgment dated 7.06.2010, the District Court granted probate of both the Wills namely the Will dated 30.01.1995 executed by the mother Adhilakshmiammal and the Will dated 10.12.1998 executed by the father Mannar Reddiar. 8. Challenging the judgment of the Probate Court, the daughter and the other son of the testators (respondents 1 and 2 herein) filed an appeal under Section 384 of the Act on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment on the ground that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of both the

Wills. Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment, the legatees are on appeal before us. 9. The claim of the appellants before the Probate Court was that the parents executed their last Will and Testament, in a sound and disposing state of mind and that those Wills were executed in the manner prescribed by law. To establish the execution of the Will of the mother Adhilakshmiammal, in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the appellants examined Mr. S. Rajasekaran as PW2. He was one of the attestors of the Will. The other attestor of the Will was none else than the father Mannar Reddiar. One Mr. B. Nithyanandham, the scribe of the Will of the Mother was also examined as PW3. 10. One Mr. M. Dakshinamurthy, who was one of the attestors of the Will of the father Mannar Reddiar, was examined as PW4 and the scribe of the said Will by name Mr. V. Sivaram, was examined as PW5. 11. While the Will executed by the mother Adhilakshmiammal was an unregistered Will, the Will executed by the father Mannar Reddiar was a registered Will. Both these Wills were marked as

evidence of PWs 4 and 5 (one of the attestors and the scribe) the Will was written at 7:00 a.m. and was registered at 3:00 p.m. on 10.12.1998. The contradiction between the statement of PW1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5 in this regard created suspicion. (iv) The ignorance of PW1 about the date and time of registration of the Will of the father was one more circumstance that created a suspicion. (v) The failure of the father to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughterinlaw during the execution of both the Wills is one more circumstance creating a suspicion. (vi) The presence of the first appellant herein at the time of execution of both the Wills, despite the appellant No.1 being a direct beneficiary, is also a circumstance to be taken notice of. (vii) Exhibit P1 (Will) executed by the mother runs to six pages. The signature of the testatrix is found exactly at the same location in pages 4 and 6. The superimposition of pages 4 and 6 shows that the signature of the testatrix had been taken in Exhibit P1 (Will) at the same place. (viii) The line space in the first part of Exhibit P1 (Will) is more than the line space in other parts of the Will. There is some difference in the style of writing in the first two pages from the writing in the last two pages of the Will. The signatures of the attestors of and the scribe are

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

ground that the scope of jurisdiction of the Probate Court was not to decide disputed questions of title to any property. 15. Insofar as the allegations of suspicious circumstances are concerned, the Probate Court was not convinced that the circumstances highlighted by the respondents raised any suspicion. Therefore, the court of original jurisdiction ordered the grant of probate. 16. While reversing the Judgment of the Probate Court, the High Court recorded the following findings: (i) Adhilakshmiammal, the testatrix of the unregistered Will (Exhibit P1) dated 30.01.1995 was said to be suffering from ailments, prior to the execution of the Will. The ailments could be physical or mental and while physical ailment cannot be a ground to question the veracity of the Will, mental ailment will certainly be a ground. The nonfurnishing of the particulars of the ailments suffered by the testatrix Adhilakshmiammal created a doubt; (ii) The failure of the legatees to probate the Will of the mother Adhilakshmiammal during the life time of the father Mannar Reddiar is a suspicious circumstance; (iii) According to PW1, the Will executed by the father Mannar Reddiar, marked as Exhibit P2 was written during night hours of 10.12.1998 but according to the

Therefore, there was no necessity for the appellants to seek probate of the said Will. After the death of Mannar Reddiar on 08.08.2000, the appellants obviously had no support, due to the fact that V.M. Chandrasekaran ( husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 ) had predeceased the father Mannar Reddiar. It is recorded in the impugned Judgment that V.M. Chandrasekaran died in October1999. 23. The occasion for the appellants to seek probate of the Will arose only when the respondents filed the suit for partition in O.S. No.387 of 2005. Therefore, there was actually no delay on the part of the appellants in seeking probate. 24. The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Exhibit P2 (Will) and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughterin law at the time of execution of Exhibit P2, has no basis in law.

reasons behind the daughter and the second son of the testators coming together. Under both the Wills Exhibit P1 and P2, the properties have been equally distributed between the two sons. The first son V.M. Chandrasekaran is now no more. Admittedly Kalavathy’s daughter has been given in marriage to V.M. Sivakumar (second son of testator). Therefore, if the bequest under the two Wills go, V.M. Sivakumar’s family may eventually receive 2/3 rd share of the properties, which is more beneficial for V.M. Sivakumar than getting half share under the Wills. Unfortunately, the High Court completely overlooked this aspect and started analyzing the Wills with suspicion. Therefore, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is incapable of being sustained. 27. In view of the above the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Judgment of the Principal District Court, Vellore granting probate of both the Wills, is restored. There will be no order as to costs. …..…………....................J. (Hemant Gupta)

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Swarnalatha & Ors v. Kalavathy & Ors concerns swarnalatha & ors vs kalavathy & ors forum-supreme court of india date- 30th march 2022 sub-dispute between daughter and daughter-in law -what can be the grounds for suspicion regarding execution of the will when challenge is made by some of the legatees regarding the will of father/mother ( father-in-law/mother-in-law for daughter-in-law) an interesting question arose in this case when a unregistered will of mother and registered will of father in a family consisting of father, mother, two sons and daughter, was subject matter of suspicion by the daughter and one son when the both the sons were given share in the both the will leaving the daughter empty handed. upon death of one of the son, to whom share was given in the estate, the probate was applied by the widow of this son and at this point of time, the daughter challenged that the will was not genuine and had been made on the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Swarnalatha & Ors Vs Kalavathy & Ors Forum-Supreme Court of India Date- 30th March 2022 Sub-Dispute between Daughter and Daughter-in law -What can be the grounds for suspicion regarding execution of the Will when challenge is made by some of the legatees regarding the Will of Father/mother ( Father-in-law/mother-in-law for daughter-in-law) An interesting question arose in this case when a unregistered Will of mother and registered will of father in a family consisting of Father, mother, two sons and daughter, was subject matter of suspicion by the daughter and one son when the both the sons were given share in the both the Will leaving the daughter empty handed. Upon death of one of the son, to whom share was given in the estate, the probate was applied by the widow of this son and at this point of time, the daughter challenged that the will was not genuine and had been made on the… Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—Article 14 of Constitution of INdia and Indian Succession Act 1925—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is Supreme Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Article 14 of Constitution of INdia and Indian Succession Act 1925 and the decision date 2022-03-30; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Swarnalatha & Ors v. Kalavathy & Ors, the proceeding is Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2022-03-30. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta; Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Article 14 of Constitution of INdia and Indian Succession Act 1925. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_CURATIVE_DOCKET_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Article 14 of Constitution of INdia and Indian Succession Act 1925 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Quashed / set aside
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• M/s Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr Vs Anita Merchant — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY