Madras HC Denies Letters Of Administration For AVM Murugan’s Will Favoring Claimed Foster Daughters, Citing Conflicting Records And Timeline

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaintiffs proved due execution of the Will dated 24 November 2008 and were entitled to Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

The court held

The Court held that the plaintiffs had not discharged their burden of proving the Will to the standard required in a contested testamentary proceeding and were therefore not entitled to Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

It also directed

The non-joinder objection did not survive because the deceased’s natural heirs were before the Court.

The suit was dismissed without costs.

01Facts

The plaintiffs sought Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, relying on a registered Will dated 24 November 2008, said to have been executed by A.V.M. Murugan in their favour.

pp. 3–5

They claimed that the testator regarded them as foster daughters and that the Will reflected his gratitude for their care.

pp. 3–5

The defendants, the deceased’s family members, challenged the Will as fraudulent and procured through undue influence.

pp. 3–5

After caveats were entered, the original petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit.

pp. 3–5

One attesting witness, C.W.1, testified to execution and attestation.

pp. 3–5

The Court considered, among other matters, conflicting descriptions of the first plaintiff’s relationship with the testator in contemporaneous documents and the chronology of communications concerning the Will and proposed probate proceedings.

pp. 7–8, 10–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaintiffs proved due execution of the Will dated 24 November 2008 and were entitled to Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

pp. 5, 14–16

ii.2. Whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the plaintiffs had to, but failed to, satisfactorily dispel.

pp. 5, 10–16

iii.3. Whether the testator executed the Will while in a sound and disposing state of mind.

p. 5, 13

iv.4. Whether the suit was defective for non-joinder of the deceased’s Class-I legal heirs.

p. 5, 17

03Law Applied

Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires a Will to be attested by two or more witnesses in the prescribed manner; Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires at least one attesting witness to be examined to prove a document that the law requires to be attested.

p. 10

Under H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443, the propounder must prove due execution and that the testator had a sound and disposing mind and understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must remove them by satisfactory evidence.

p. 10

Registration and examination of an attesting witness do not, by themselves, dispense with proof of the statutory requirements or resolve suspicious circumstances.

pp. 15–16

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 232 Section 276 Section 63

04Reasoning

C.W.1’s testimony addressed execution and attestation, but the Court assessed it alongside the full evidentiary record.

pp. 10–12

The first plaintiff’s asserted relationship with the testator was disputed, and Exs. D4 and D5 described her as the testator’s wife, while Ex. D6 recorded her marriage to another person, with the testator as an attesting witness.

pp. 10–12

The Court also found the plaintiffs had not satisfactorily explained why Ex. D8, referring to the Will and proposed probate proceedings, predated the executor’s letter, Ex. P3, or adequately clarified the circumstances in which the original Will came to be acted upon.

pp. 12–16

Inconsistencies surrounding how C.W.1 was contacted further weakened the evidence’s capacity to dispel the doubts.

pp. 12–16

Although the defendants did not prove testamentary incapacity and exclusion of natural heirs was not independently invalid, the Court found the combined circumstances remained unexplained; registration did not cure that deficiency.

pp. 12–16