Life interest given to wife enlarged in to absolute right - An un-probated Will cannot be relied upon to establish any right in view of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act
Padmavathy Ammal v. Pachaiyappa Nainar & Rangasamy Nainar,
an un-probated Will cannot be relied upon to establish any right in view of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in reported in. 2012 (1) LW 1017
Citation
Padmavathy Ammal Versus Pachaiyappa Nainar & Another
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, Section 100- Suit
for declaration and injunction - settlement deed executed by husband in
favour of plaintiff/appellant/wife with lifetime interest in lieu of
maintenance – relative’s claim under unprobated will – will cannot be
looked into by Court – right of wife under intestate succession becomes
absolute – Appeal allowed.
(Paras 2, 20,22)
Indian Succession Act, Sections 213(2) (ii) and 57 – Admissability of unprobated will required to be probated – Wills executed within original jurisdiction of Madras High Court compulsorily to be probated - not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose – cannot determine rights of parties to a suit - evidence of attestors not sustainable – legatees cannot claim any rights under the will – plaintiff/wife inherits under Hindu Law of Succession. (Paras 16,17)
AIR 1977 SC 1944 Tulasamma v Sesha Reddy relied on
2011 – 1 – TLNJ 614 (Civil) (G.Ganesan and others ..vs.. P.Sundari and others)relied on
Hindu Succession Act, Section 14(1) and (2)- scope- large in its amplitude- covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu – right of absolute ownership- restricted only by terms of pre-existing right, under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award,- restricted right granted in lieu of wife’s maintenance enlarged.
(Para19, 20)
1996 (10) SCC 642 (Himi ..vs.. Hira Devi) relied on ; V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy relied on
Cases Referred:
1. 2011 – 1 – TLNJ 614 (Civil) (G.Ganesan and others ..vs.. P.Sundari and others)
2. 1996 (10) SCC 642 (Himi ..vs.. Hira Devi)
3. AIR 1977 SC 1944 (V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy )
4. Ganshmdoss ..vs.. Gulab Bi Bai (AIR 1927 Madras 1054)
5. Commissioner ..vs.. Mohan Krishan Abrol (2004 (7) SCC 505)
Comparative Citations:
2012 (1) LW 1017, 2012 (1) MWN(Civil) 663
(Paras 2, 20,22)
Indian Succession Act, Sections 213(2) (ii) and 57 – Admissability of unprobated will required to be probated – Wills executed within original jurisdiction of Madras High Court compulsorily to be probated - not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose – cannot determine rights of parties to a suit - evidence of attestors not sustainable – legatees cannot claim any rights under the will – plaintiff/wife inherits under Hindu Law of Succession. (Paras 16,17)
AIR 1977 SC 1944 Tulasamma v Sesha Reddy relied on
2011 – 1 – TLNJ 614 (Civil) (G.Ganesan and others ..vs.. P.Sundari and others)relied on
Hindu Succession Act, Section 14(1) and (2)- scope- large in its amplitude- covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu – right of absolute ownership- restricted only by terms of pre-existing right, under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award,- restricted right granted in lieu of wife’s maintenance enlarged.
(Para19, 20)
1996 (10) SCC 642 (Himi ..vs.. Hira Devi) relied on ; V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy relied on
Cases Referred:
1. 2011 – 1 – TLNJ 614 (Civil) (G.Ganesan and others ..vs.. P.Sundari and others)
2. 1996 (10) SCC 642 (Himi ..vs.. Hira Devi)
3. AIR 1977 SC 1944 (V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy )
4. Ganshmdoss ..vs.. Gulab Bi Bai (AIR 1927 Madras 1054)
5. Commissioner ..vs.. Mohan Krishan Abrol (2004 (7) SCC 505)
Comparative Citations:
2012 (1) LW 1017, 2012 (1) MWN(Civil) 663
Comments
Post a Comment