Thangam Vs. Navamani Ammal [Supreme Court, March 4, 2024]
Background and Facts
The central issue in this case was the genuineness of a registered Will dated October 9, 1984, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favor of Navamani Ammal, the respondent. The testator was the husband of appellant Thangam (his third wife) and father of appellant Laila. The Will bequeathed about 3.5 acres of land to Navamani Ammal, who was the daughter of the testator’s brother and treated like a daughter by him. The testator’s total estate included approximately 8 acres of land and three houses. The appellants, being the widow and minor daughter, challenged the Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including the testator’s ill health at the time of execution and their exclusion from the Will.
Procedural History
The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and injunction in favor of Navamani Ammal, holding the Will to be genuine.
The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, finding suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
On second appeal, the High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s decree, upholding the Will’s validity.
The appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s findings.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and whether the procedural requirements for contesting a Will were followed. The Court emphasized:
Requirement of Specific Denial: Under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a written statement must contain a para-wise, specific reply to each allegation in the plaint. The appellants failed to provide such specific denials, leading to deemed admissions of several facts as per Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC.
No Suspicious Circumstances: The Court found no evidence to support the claim that the testator was of unsound mind or coerced. The Will was registered, and the testator was aware of his responsibilities—he left sufficient property for his widow and minor daughter, indicating he was “fully conscious of the welfare of his widow and minor daughter as sufficient property was left for them”.
Conduct of Appellants: The appellants had not taken steps to mutate the property in their favor or care for the estate after the testator’s death, while the respondent’s family bore the funeral expenses and managed the property.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s restoration of the Trial Court’s decree. The Will was held to be genuine and free from suspicious circumstances. The Court reiterated the importance of procedural compliance in pleadings and the evidentiary value of registered Wills supported by witnesses and material evidence.
Key Points:
The genuineness of a Will must be established by evidence and absence of suspicious circumstances.
Specific, para-wise denial in written statements is mandatory; failure leads to deemed admissions.
The Supreme Court upheld the Will’s validity, emphasizing procedural rigor in will contestation cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments