REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K Seshadri; Malathi Seshadri; Vijay Seshadri; Gayathri Rajkumar; Srividya Jaiganesh; Anil Seshadri Appellant

V/S

Vasantha Balakrishnan; K Gopal; K Gopal Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SARDAR GURBAKHSH SINGH VS. GURDIAN SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
PILLAI VS. PARAMESHWARAN [REFERRED]
SHASHIKUMAR BANNERJEE VS. SUBOTH KUMAR BANNERJEE [REFERRED]
NARESH CHARAN DAS GUPTA VS. PARESH CHARAN DAS GUPTA [REFERRED]
STATE VS. ABDUL SULTAN HAJI IBRAHIM PALET [REFERRED]
H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B.N.THIMMAHAMMA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
JANAKI DEVI VS. R.VASANTHI AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
PALANISWAMI VS. P.VELLIANGIRI GOUNDER AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
SURENDRA PAL AND OTHERS VS. DR. (MRS.) SARASWATI ARORA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
BHIMAPPA VS. ALLISAB [REFERRED]
RAMACHANDRA RAMBUX VS. CHAMPABAI AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
N KAMALAN DEAD VS. AYYASAMY [REFERRED]
DAULAT RAM VS. SODHA [REFERRED]
NIRANJAN UMESHCHANDRA JOSHI VS. MRUDULA JYOTI RAO [REFERRED]
ADIVEKKA VS. HANAMAVVA KOM VENKATESH [REFERRED]
SAVITHRI VS. KARTHYAYANI AMMA [REFERRED]
ANIL KAK VS. KUMARI SHARADA RAJE [REFERRED]
SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN VS. S RAJALAKSHMI [REFERRED]
CORRA VEDACHALAM CHETTY 17 OLD NO 45 STROTTEN MUTHIAH MUDALI STREET MADRAS 600 079 VS. G JANAKIRAMAN [REFERRED]
K SADAGOPAN VS. K YAMUNAN NO 62 T P KOIL STREET TRIPLICANE MADRAS 5 [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The whole case is revolving around Ex.P3 and P4 viz., the original wills dated 03.02.1984 purported to have been executed by the father and mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 i.e., by Dr.K.G.Krishnasamy and his wife Mrs.Ramlakshmi Krishnasamy bequeathing the immovable property specified in the plaint A schedule in the testamentary suits in favour of the first plaintiff Mr.K.Seshadri and the second defendant K.Gopal disinheriting their only daughter, the first defendant, and she alone challenges the validity of the wills Exs.P3 and P4 (Exs. P1 and P2 are the xerox copies) dated 03.02.1984.

(2.) So the burden to subscribe the answer rests on the shoulder of the propounder of the wills. If the testator and testatrix alive, this question would not have arisen because the alleged wills would not have been brought in to existence as it would take effect only after their demise.

(3.) With the propounder being the sole executor and one of the beneficiaries along with second defendant Mr.K.Gopal, the onus is on his part to answer this question.

Click here to view full judgment.

K SESHADRI; MALATHI SESHADRI; VIJAY SESHADRI; GAYATHRI RAJKUMAR; SRIVIDYA JAIGANESH; ANIL SESHADRI Vs. VASANTHA BALAKRISHNAN; K GOPAL; K GOPAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address