The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court judgment that had upheld a registered Will concerning agricultural property in a long-running family succession dispute. The Court held that the Will had not been proved in the manner required by law and restored the trial court’s preliminary partition decree.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on August 13, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from properties originally belonging to Vaiyapuri Gounder, who had three wives. His third wife, Arukkaniammal, survived him and had no children. The property subsequently became the subject of competing claims between the branches of his first and second wives.
At the centre of the dispute was a registered Will dated December 15, 1976, marked as Ex.B-13. The Will purported to leave the A-schedule agricultural properties to the four sons of Alamathal, who belonged to the branch of Vaiyapuri Gounder’s second wife.
The trial court had rejected the Will and granted a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiffs collectively entitled to a two-thirds share. The Madras High Court later reversed that decision, accepted the Will and granted permanent injunction in favour of the other side.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court closely examined how the Will was executed and proved. It noted that neither of the two named attesting witnesses had entered the witness box. The scribe, K.S. Srinivasa Rao, had specifically stated that he signed the document as its writer and not as an attesting witness.
The bench observed that merely signing a Will as a scribe does not make a person an attesting witness. The Court also held that registration of a Will does not by itself remove the statutory requirement of proving its execution and attestation.
The Court further found that the respondents had not satisfactorily established the unavailability of one of the attesting witnesses, Avanashi Gounder, which was necessary for relying upon the alternative mode of proof under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
The bench also considered the cumulative effect of several circumstances surrounding the Will. These included the incorrect description of the property as self-acquired, the description of Alamathal as Arukkaniammal’s daughter, exclusion of two branches of heirs without explanation, the relationship between an attesting witness and a beneficiary, the non-examination of Alamathal and the unexplained custody of the original Will.
“Their cumulative effect is substantial,” the Court observed, holding that the legitimate doubts surrounding the Will had not been satisfactorily removed.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that Ex.B-13 had not been proved as the lawful last Will and testament of Arukkaniammal under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act read with Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act.
The Court held that succession would therefore be governed by Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. It restored the trial court’s preliminary decree granting the plaintiffs a collective two-thirds share in the A and B schedule properties and dismissed the suit seeking permanent injunction.
The appeals were accordingly allowed, the Madras High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s judgment and decree were restored.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pazhanathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Alamathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10169-10170 of 2013
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: August 13, 2026
 and NTPC Limite-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
