Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2912 (MAD)

Sunil S. Ahuja v. Meena P. Achapal

2021-10-26

V.PARTHIBAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Original Petition filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 39 of 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 4 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, praying that petitioner may be allowed to prove the Will in common form and that probate thereof to have effect limited to the Union of India may be granted to the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed for grant of probate in respect of the Will, dated 01.03.2013 and Codicil dated 23.05.2016 executed by the deceased Manibai Tulasidas, by proving the Will and Codicil in common form to have effect limited to the Union of India. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that the first respondent is the daughter of Late Manibai Tulsidas and wife of Prakash Achpal. The second respondent is the son of Late Manibai Tulsidas. The said Manibail Tulsidas, wife of Late Tulsidas Hotchand, died at the residence of her daughter, the first respondent, at Flat No.T.12-A, “Krishna Dwellington“, Block-D, Lottagolla Halli, RMV 2nd Stage, Devinagar, Bengaluru-560 094 on 01.06.2016. The deceased Late Manibail Tulsidas was in possession of properties within the State of Tamil Nadu and within the jurisdiction of this Court. She was an ordinary resident of Chennai and her usual place of residence was at No.16, Medavakkam Tank Road, Chennai-600012. The deceased Manibai Tulsidas left behind her daughter Mrs.Meena Prakash Achpal, wife of Prakash Achpal , i.e. the first respondent herein and her son, Nandlal Tulsidas Rajani, the second respondent herein. The husband of Manibail Tulsidas, viz., Tulsidas Hotchand pre-deceased her on 11.11.1993. 3. The writing in Letter-A marked in the original Will and Testament of Late Manibai Tulsidas, is that of the deceased-testatrix and the original Will and Testament was executed by her at Bengaluru on 01.03.2013 in the presence of witnesses, whose name appear at the foot thereof. The deceased Manibai Tulsidas, thereafter, before her death, also executed a Codicil on 23.05.2016 at Bengaluru, and the Codicil is marked with Letter-B and the said Codicil was also executed in the presence of the witnesses whose name appear at the foot thereof. The petitioner is the sole executor named in the said Will. 4. The deceased Manibai Tulsidas, thereafter, before her death, also executed a Codicil on 23.05.2016 at Bengaluru, and the Codicil is marked with Letter-B and the said Codicil was also executed in the presence of the witnesses whose name appear at the foot thereof. The petitioner is the sole executor named in the said Will. 4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner-s hands, does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and the net amount of the said assets after deducting all items which the petitioner, by law, is allowed to deduct, is of the value of Rs.2,99,80,000/-. So far as the petitioner has been able to ascertain or is aware, there are no property or credits other than what is specified in the affidavit of assets filed along with the petition. 5. The petitioner has impleaded all the next of kin or other persons interested as party respondents. There is no next of kin or other persons interested to be impleaded. No application has been made to any District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for the grant of probate of any Will of the deceased or Letters of Administration with or without the Will or the Codicil annexed of her properties and credits. The first respondent has given her consent for probate being granted to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner undertakes to administer the properties and credits of Late Manibai Tulsidas (deceased) and in any way concerning her Will and Codicil by paying first her debts, if any and then the legacies therein bequeathed insofar as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of grant of probate to the petitioner and also render to this Court a true and proper account of the said properties and credits within one year from the said date. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the relief stated supra. 7. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. Ex.P-1 is the original Will, dated 01.03.2013 executed by Manibai Tulsidas, which has been attested by two attesting witnesses, namely (i) Mr.Sailesh Kumar Parekh and (ii) Mr.Dinesh Vasudev Kalra. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the relief stated supra. 7. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. Ex.P-1 is the original Will, dated 01.03.2013 executed by Manibai Tulsidas, which has been attested by two attesting witnesses, namely (i) Mr.Sailesh Kumar Parekh and (ii) Mr.Dinesh Vasudev Kalra. Ex.P-2 is the original Codicil, dated 23.05.2016 executed by Manibai Tulsidas, which has been attested by two attesting witnesses, namely (i) Mr.S.Kapildev Behl and (ii) Dr.B.Venkatesh. Ex.P-3 is the photocopy of the Death Certificate of Tulsidas Hotchand, who died on 11.11.1993. Ex.P-4 is the photocopy of the Death Certificate of Manibai Tulsidas, who died on 01.06.2016. Ex.P-5 is the photocopy of the family tree affidavit, dated 19.12.2017. Ex.P-6 is the photocopy of the property tax receipt, dated 27.10.2017 standing in the name of Kishindas and two others. Ex.P-7 is the photocopy of the payment receipt, dated 23.10.2017 issued by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Ex.P-8 is the consent affidavit given by the first respondent. Ex.P-9 is the affidavit of assets showing the net value of the Estate as Rs.2,99,80,000/-. 8. One Mr.Dinesh Vasudev Kalra was examined as P.W.2, who stated in his evidence that he knew the deceased-testatrix Late Manibai Tulsidas, as she was his family friend for 30 years. He had attested the Will executed by the deceased-testatrix and P.W.2 further deposed that she had signed the Will in the presence of P.W.2. After she had signed the Will, one Mr.Sailesh Kumar Parekh signed as the first witness and thereafter, P.W.2 signed as the second witness. Both of them signed in the presence of the deceased-testatrix. P.W.2 further deposed that the Will was executed in the Registration Office at Bengaluru and that at the time of execution of the Will, the deceased was in a sound state of mind and she was understanding all the happenings. At the request of the deceased-testatrix, P.W.2 and Mr.Sailesh Kumar Parekh attested the Will. P.W.2 has filed his affidavit in that regard, which is marked as Ex.P-10. 9. Mrs.Meena Prakash Achpal, the first respondent, was examined as P.W.3 and she had deposed that the deceased is her mother and she has no objection in probating the Will and Codicil executed by her mother. P.W.3 has filed her consent affidavit in that regard, which was marked as Ex.P-8. 10. One Dr.B.Venkatesh was examined as P.W.4. 9. Mrs.Meena Prakash Achpal, the first respondent, was examined as P.W.3 and she had deposed that the deceased is her mother and she has no objection in probating the Will and Codicil executed by her mother. P.W.3 has filed her consent affidavit in that regard, which was marked as Ex.P-8. 10. One Dr.B.Venkatesh was examined as P.W.4. He deposed that he is the family physician of the deceased-testatrix for the last ten years. He further stated that she had executed a Codicil dated 23.05.2016 and signed the Codicil in the presence of P.W.4 and Mr.S.Kapildev Behl. At the request of the deceased, P.W.4 subscribed his signature as the second attesting witness along with Mr.S.Kapildev Bhal, who attested the Codicil as the first attesting witness. P.W.4 further deposed that the deceased was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Codicil Ex.P-2. P.W.4 has mentioned the same in the Codicil also. P.W.4 has filed his affidavit in that regard, which is marked as Ex.P-11. 11. Newspaper publication has been effected and there is no objector for grant of probate. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 13. From the averments made in the petition and the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 4 and considering Exs.P-1 to P-11 and also taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has executed the Will and Codicil, while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind, and also taking into account that there is no objector for granting probate in favour of the petitioner, inspite of paper publication having been effected and also taking into account that the first respondent has filed her consent affidavit Ex.P-8 for grant of probate in favour of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has proved his claim and that the Will and Codicil had been proved in common form and there is no contra evidence. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this Original Petition. 14. In fine, this Original Petition is ordered as prayed for. Registry is directed to grant “Probate“ in respect of the said Will and Codicil, in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this Original Petition. 14. In fine, this Original Petition is ordered as prayed for. Registry is directed to grant “Probate“ in respect of the said Will and Codicil, in favour of the petitioner. As undertaken by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the petition, the petitioner shall duly administer the properties and credits of the deceased in any way concerning her Will and Codicil by paying first her debts, if any and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same before this Court within six months from the date of issuance of Probate by the Registry of this Court and also to render before this Court a true and proper account of the said properties and credits within one year from the date of issuance of Probate by the Registry of this Court.