Madras HC Gives Puducherry Trial Court 8 Weeks To Decide Partition Suit Over Disputed Will, Stressing Proof And Suspicious Circumstances

The plaintiffs brought a partition suit seeking a one-third share and permanent injunction. The defendants relied on a Will dated 6 August 2011, marked as Ex.B2; the plaintiffs disputed its genuineness, alleging that the signature was forged and the document fabricated.

After the suit was reserved for judgment, the plaintiffs applied to reopen the case and have the Will examined by an expert. The trial court allowed both applications, prompting the defendants to file these revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

By the time the revisions were heard, the expert report had been submitted to the trial court.

The revisions were brought under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court stated that, in assessing a Will, the trial court must consider the evidence on both due proof of the Will and whether suspicious circumstances surrounding it have been dispelled.

The petitioners relied on Periathal and Others v. Gomathi and Another, (2018) 3 MWN (Civil) 584, in support of their contention concerning expert examination of Wills.

Because the expert report had already been submitted, the Court considered it unnecessary to rule on the legality of the orders permitting reopening and expert examination.

It instead clarified the task remaining for the trial court: to assess the evidence concerning proof of Ex.B2 and whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will had been dispelled. Thus, the revisions were disposed of without a merits determination on the expert-referral question.

It directed the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, to dispose of O.S. No. 271 of 2022 within eight weeks of receiving the order, applying the stated evidentiary test to the Will marked as Ex.B2. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.