In a significant ruling delivered on 29 September 2025, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a 74-year-old widow seeking partition of her late husband's property. The bench, presided over by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, upheld the trial court's earlier finding that the deceased man, Prabhakara Panicker, had executed a valid will in favour of his only daughter, leaving the second wife with only a small monthly allowance.
Background of the Dispute
The case traces back nearly two decades. After the death of his first wife just days after childbirth, Panicker remarried in 1972. His daughter from the first marriage, Janakikutty, became the respondent in the present appeal, while his second wife, Ramani, stood as the appellant.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Pulls Up Centre for Delays in Implementing Transgender Rights, Gives Four Weeks to Respond
Ramani argued that Panicker had died without leaving a will (intestate), and therefore, she was entitled to half the share of the properties. She claimed the will produced by the daughter was "fabricated" and created under suspicious circumstances.
The daughter, however, maintained that her father had clearly executed a registered will in 2000, leaving all immovable properties to her. The document, marked as Exhibit B1, even included a clause directing her to provide the stepmother with a monthly payment of ₹300.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Bail to Rewa Advocate Accused in Rape and Trafficking Case
Court's Observations
The High Court carefully revisited the evidence. Doctors from Elite Mission Hospital were examined to prove that Panicker was not in sound health at the time of executing the will. However, Justice Kumar noted that the medical records only indicated a cardiac condition, not any mental incapacity.
"The surgery was advised in 2000, but it was never carried out. He lived until 2004 and even executed another property assignment in 2002, which the plaintiff never questioned," the bench observed. This, the court said, showed he was capable of executing legal documents.
Read also:- Madras High Court Sets Aside Rs.3.93 Lakh Compensation in Motor Accident Claim, Citing Borrower Rule
Testimony from one of the will's attesting witnesses further strengthened the daughter's case. The witness recounted accompanying Panicker to the registrar's office, where the will was read out to him, and he signed it willingly.
"Nothing substantial has been brought out to discredit the testimony of DW2," the judge remarked.
The court also considered the relationship dynamics. The daughter, who lost her mother at birth, had moved in with her father years before the will. On the other hand, the stepmother was living separately for employment and only visited occasionally.
The judge pointed out that Ramani herself admitted that her name was not included in Panicker's ration card and voter ID address, which supported the daughter’s version that she was not the primary caretaker.
Decision
After weighing all factors, the Kerala High Court concluded there was no suspicious circumstance surrounding the will. Justice Kumar stated:
"It is natural for a father to show affection to his only daughter, who lost her mother at birth. Bequeathing his entire immovable property to her while ensuring a small provision for his second wife cannot be considered unusual."
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decree in favour of the daughter. No costs were awarded, given the sensitive family ties involved.
All pending applications connected to the appeal were also dismissed.
Case Title: Ramani vs Janakikutty
Case Number: RFA No. 339 of 2014
Judgment Date: 29 September 2025
Counsel for Appellant: Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy
Counsel for Respondent: Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian
