Murthy & Ors v. Saradambal & Ors

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 67; 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act; 1925 provisions

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Murthy & Ors Vs C.Saradambal & Ors Forum-Supreme Court of India Date-10th December, 2021 Sub-When a will can be said to have been made by a person when he was in sound and disposing state of mind? The Supreme Court in this case was considering an interesting case when the daughter in law opposed the suit for partition of an immovable property when her two sister-in-law claimed their share in the property upon death of their father who had alleged to have given the said property by way of an unregistered will to his only son depriving her two daughters from the property. The Court was called upon to decide whether the Will in this case for which Letter of Administration was applied by the daughter in law was a genuine will or not as the son to whom the property was given had also died. The court noted the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court on proof of Will as reported AIR 1959 SC…
• 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.4270 OF 2010 MURTHY & ORS. ……..APPELLANT(S) VS. C. SARADAMBAL & ORS. …...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T NAGARATHNA J. This appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 08th December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in O.S.A. No. 470 of 2002 by which the judgment and decree passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 1994, wherein the learned Trial Judge of the High Court had dismissed the suit for grant of Letters of Administration, was set aside and the said suit was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in O.P. No. 150 of 1993 which was converted to T.O.S. No.

the testator had filed O.S. No. 5477 of 1990 on the file of IV Assistant City Civil Judge Court, Madras seeking partition of the said property. Therefore, it had become necessary for the plaintiffs to file the petition seeking Letters of Administration.

deathbed. It was further contended that deceased testator E. Srinivasa Pillai had a paralytic attack and was unable to write or move. It was urged that the will had to be proved in accordance with law by removing all suspicious circumstances in connection with the execution of the same, to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. It was contended that the defendants had been deprived of intestate succession on account of the fraudulent and forged will. 7. The defendants averred that their father died on 19 th January, 1978, that their mother had predeceased him and their brother had also died in 1989. The defendants also averred that the first plaintiff got married to the brother of defendants on 07 th June, 1970. The second and third plaintiffs were the daughters born out of the said wedlock. The first plaintiff willfully deserted her husband and had also filed a Matrimonial Petition bearing No. 136 of 1988, seeking dissolution of her marriage, by a decree of divorce but since defendants’ brother died on

03rd June, 1989, the said petition for dissolution of marriage became infructuous. The defendants contended that the first plaintiff never cared for their brother. It was further contended that their brother, S. Damodaran had lived for eleven years after the death of their father and he had never disclosed about the execution of the will by their father. 8. The defendants had issued a legal notice dated 22nd June, 1989 to the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of their twothird share in the scheduled property and after waiting for a period of two and a half months, they had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the said two-third share of the property. 9. It was further averred that the testator, E. Srinivasa Pillai was completely bedridden, incapable of writing and understanding anything for a period of ten months prior to his death. The name of the witnesses and the name of the person who had drafted the will were never disclosed. It was further averred that the

testator E. Srinivasa Pillai was working in Binny and Company, Madras and was associated with welleducated and respectable people. That the petition seeking Letters of Administration was filed fifteen years after the death of the testator. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the petition seeking Letters of Administration. 10. Having regard to the objections raised by the defendants, the Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit being T.O.S. No. 20 of 1994. 11. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues for consideration: “(1) Whether the will was executed by the testator while in a sound and disposing state of mind? And (2) To what relief are the parties entitled?” 12. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 14 th January, 2000 by answering the aforesaid issues against the plaintiffs.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

13. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Judge, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal being O.S.A. No. 470 of 2002 before the High Court. The Division Bench vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8 th December, 2008, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal. 14. We have heard Mr. S. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K. K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in reversing the judgment of the learned Trial Judge of the said Court without assigning reasons for doing so and in that regard drew our attention to the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the learned Trial Judge had closely perused the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and had rightly dismissed the suit. However, the Division Bench of the High

Court in the absence of any reasoning, had reversed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge. 16. It was next submitted that the testament, on the basis of which the respondents sought grant of Letters of Administration was concocted. The father of the appellants, namely, E. Srinivasa Pillai was bedridden prior to his death as he had sustained a paralytic stroke and was not in a position to sign or write and neither was he in a sound disposing state of mind. The appellants contended that he could not have even thought of making the bequest of the house in which he was residing, exclusively in favour of his son, S. Damodaran. They contended that the very execution of the will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances inasmuch as even the signature found on the controversial document is not that of the testator. Elaborating on the same, it was urged that the respondents had placed reliance on Exs.P2 and P3 to demonstrate that the signature on the said documents tallied with the signatures of the testator on the will. However, even on a cursory glance of the said signatures it is

January, 1978 and put my signature in their presence.” At this stage we note that the will itself recites that the testator was sick and getting weak. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants has adumbrated on the following suspicious circumstances in the execution of the will. They can be succinctly stated as under: (i) Date of the will and date of death of the testator being too close throws a doubt on the sound disposing state of mind of the testator. (ii) Testator was bedridden prior to his death as he was suffering from paralysis. (iii) Attestor (PW2) being known to the first plaintiff, the propounder of the will, but not to the deceased testator. (iv) The husband of the first plaintiff and son of the testator, who was a practicing advocate, was unaware of the execution of the will during his lifetime.

by his father, he did not take steps to seek probate of the will. (vi) He has also admitted that he signed the affidavit in the suit on the instructions and as requested by the counsel. (f) The Trial Court has not believed the evidence of PW2. It is highly improbable that the only son of the testator who was a practicing advocate and on whom the bequest of the house was made, was unaware of the execution of the will by his father. It is unnatural that the father would not have disclosed to his only son about the bequest of the property, (particularly when the son was a practicing advocate) and had also not taken his son’s assistance in the drafting as well as execution of the will. (g) Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that the signature of the testator on the will (Ex-P1) does not tally with his signatures on Ex-P2 and Ex-P3. We have compared the said signatures. Even though the said signatures on the aforesaid documents have

Revenue / respondent submissions

Administration was filed only in order to seek the imprimatur of the Court on the said document. 18. It was further contended that the attestors of the so-called testament were not known to the deceased testator, they are in fact known to the first plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 herein. 19. It was further urged that the very execution of the will is suspicious and therefore the learned Trial Judge had rightly dismissed the suit of the respondents herein. However, the Appellate Court simply reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge without any reasoning. Hence, it was submitted that the impugned judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the Appellate Court may be set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge may be restored. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit, drew our attention to the oral and documentary evidence on record and contended that the execution of the will had been proved in accordance with Section

only one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Varadan was examined as PW2, as the other attesting witness, namely, Dakshinamurthy was not alive to be examined so as to corroborate the genuineness of the will which is permissible in law. 28. In Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has observed as under: “8. This Court has also verified the signatures of the testator in the will with those of the signatures available in the previous documents namely, Ex-P2 school Leaving Certificate, and Ex-P3, Building Plan. On verification, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the signatures available in the will are tallied with the signatures available in the School Leaving Certificate and the Building Plan. Though it is stated by the respondents that the legates filed matrimonial petition against the appellant, in the absence of any order thereon, this Court cannot give much importance to such proceedings. Also, the respondents filed a suit for partition of the suit property on the file of IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, which is stated to be pending. 9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings for

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Appellate Court was convinced about the factum of the execution of the will by the testator E. Srinivasa Pillai and the fact that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will by the testator. Therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the same may be confirmed. 21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. 22. The question that arises for consideration is, whether, the Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein and consequently, decreeing the suit filed by them. 23. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Deceased E. Srinivasa Pillai was the father of the husband of first plaintiff as well as the father of defendants being the daughters.

although the testator’s son was a practising advocate. (xii) PW2 admitted that PW1 was outside the room at the time of the execution of the will whereas PW1 stated that when the will (Ex-P1) was executed by her father-in-law she was present. So, there exists a discrepancy in the versions of evidences by PW1 and PW2. (xiii) PW2 had admitted that he had filed the affidavit on the request of the advocate and not on his own accord. Therefore, no weight could be attached to the evidence of PW2. (xiv) Daughters of the deceased had filed a partition suit being O.S. No. 5977 of 1990. It is only, thereafter , that proceedings were commenced by the plaintiffs for grant of Letters of Administration. (xv) Since the testator was not healthy prior to his death and was suffering from paralysis, he was not in a

probate of the will. In this context, it is to be stated that the time taken and the reasons adduced for initiation of probate proceedings are the factors to be considered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, the said argument fails. 10. The proof and validity of the will has to be examined on the settled propositions of law such as the evidence of the attestor, comparison of signatures of the testator, legal principles, intention of the testator and other circumstances. However, the learned single Judge proceeded on the sole ground that the will had not been probated for a long time. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained, as the legal principles are not properly follows. 11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the discussion made above, the judgment of the learned single Judge is legally infirmed and the same is set aside. As such, this O.S.A. is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.9517 of 2006 and 1492 of 2008 are closed.” 29. With the aforesaid observations, the judgment of the learned Trial Judge was reversed by the Division Bench. 30. Before considering the correctness of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the

repeated pronouncements made by this Court on the subject including the decisions referred to and relied upon before us. 31. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the validity of will (Ex-P1) said to be the last will and testament of deceased E. Srinivasa Pillai shall be considered. On a reading of will (ExP1), we note that immovable property bearing House No.6/1 Azeez Nagar, 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Madras – 600024 and the building situate on it being about two grounds which was bought by the testator in the year 1953 is the subject matter of the bequest to his son S. Damodaran a practising advocate at Madras. The will further recites as under : “I desire that this house should go to my son S. Damodaran and he must inherit without any conditions and I herein transfer it absolutely to him with all powers inclusive of disposing it off if necessary. No other person should have any claim over it. As I am sick and getting weak, I write and sign this will in the presence of these two witnesses who are present before me on this the 4 th day of

been made at different points of time, we find they are totally dissimilar inasmuch as the signatures on Ex-P2 and P3 do not resemble each other and the signature on the will (Ex-P1) is dissimilar to the signatures of testator on Ex-P2 and P3, particularly the letter ‘E’. This fact raises a suspicion in the mind of this Court as to whether the signature on Ex-P1 was really that of the testator. Further if really the testator had himself written the will the fonts of the recital of the will and his signature do not at all match. (h) It was also contended that the evidence of PW1, the propounder of the will, does not inspire confidence. We shall highlight the same: (i) PW1 has stated that Ex-P1 was executed about fifteen days prior to the death of the testator who was her father-inlaw and the same was in the custody of the testator. Ex-P1 has seen light of the day, only after the demise of the testator’s son who was unaware of the

his demise and was not in a position to move around. (iii) PW1 has stated that the will was written by a person known to her father-in-law but the name of the person who wrote the will has not been mentioned therein. There is no mention of or evidence of the scribe of the will. (iv) PW1 has also admitted that no date has been mentioned on top of the will. Thus, the date of the execution of the will has also not found a place on ExP1. This aspect also casts a doubt as to whether the will was executed by the testator during his lifetime. (v) PW1 has stated that Ex-P1 was executed by her father-in-law and she was present when it was executed but PW2, the attestor has stated that PW1 was outside the room at the time of execution of the will. In view of the above, we find much force in the submission of appellant’s counsel.

Operative decision and relief

evidence, it is found that the judgment of the Trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the Appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact but by assigning cogent reasons for doing so. Otherwise, the findings of the Trial Court should not be interfered with lightly on a question of fact. Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact, it is necessary that the Appellate Court assigns its own reasons for doing so. This is especially so in case there are further appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the first Appellate Court is the final court of facts and the said findings are immune from challenge in a second appeal. 39. In B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy – (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle in these words : (SCC pp.530-31, paras 3-5) “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC has been considered by this Court in various

of the learned Trial Judge in the absence of reappreciation of evidence and without giving findings on questions of fact as well as on the applicable law and by not reasoning as to why the judgment of the learned Trial Judge was erroneous. 43. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 08 th December, 2008 in O.S.A 470 of 2002 and restore the judgment of the Learned Trial Judge passed in O.T.S No. 20/1994 dated 14th January, 2000 by allowing instant appeal. 44. Having regard to the relationship between the parties, they shall bear their respective costs. 45. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed. ……………………………………….….J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ……………………….…………...J [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI; 10th DECEMBER, 2021.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Murthy & Ors v. Saradambal & Ors concerns murthy & ors vs c.saradambal & ors forum-supreme court of india date-10th december, 2021 sub-when a will can be said to have been made by a person when he was in sound and disposing state of mind? the supreme court in this case was considering an interesting case when the daughter in law opposed the suit for partition of an immovable property when her two sister-in-law claimed their share in the property upon death of their father who had alleged to have given the said property by way of an unregistered will to his only son depriving her two daughters from the property. the court was called upon to decide whether the will in this case for which letter of administration was applied by the daughter in law was a genuine will or not as the son to whom the property was given had also died. the court noted the celebrated decision of the supreme court on proof of will as reported air 1959 sc… 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.4270 OF 2010.

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 “Disposed / relief as recorded” 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: Murthy & Ors Vs C.Saradambal & Ors Forum-Supreme Court of India Date-10th December, 2021 Sub-When a will can be said to have been made by a person when he was in sound and disposing state of mind? The Supreme Court in this case was considering an interesting case when the daughter in law opposed the suit for partition of an immovable property when her two sister-in-law claimed their share in the property upon death of their father who had alleged to have given the said property by way of an unregistered will to his only son depriving her two daughters from the property. The Court was called upon to decide whether the Will in this case for which Letter of Administration was applied by the daughter in law was a genuine will or not as the son to whom the property was given had also died. The court noted the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court on proof of Will as reported AIR 1959 SC… Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—Section 67; 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act; 1925 provisions—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 Section 67; 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act; 1925 provisions and the decision date 2021-12-10; 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 Murthy & Ors v. Saradambal & Ors, the proceeding is CIVIL APPEAL NO.4270 OF 2010, and the decision is dated 2021-12-10. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Nagarathna, J. (authoring judge identified in judgment). 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 Section 67; 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act; 1925 provisions. 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 Disposed / relief as recorded. 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 petition 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

• Section 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 1925 provisions — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• State of Karnataka & Anr etc v. State of Meghalaya & Anr etc — Supreme Court of India · Disposed / relief as recorded
• Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax — Supreme Court of India · Disposed / relief as recorded
• The CIT, Chennai v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed — Supreme Court of India · Disposed / relief as recorded
• PCIT v. Axis Bank Ltd — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Operative order controls

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 text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published