http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5145 of 2003

PETITIONER: S. Sankaran

RESPONDENT: D. Kausalya

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2007

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Madras High Court dated 14.2.2002 in O.S.A. No. 275 of 1999.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the appellant is that the testator Singaravelu Nayagar  executed a will on 24.9.1986 registered as Document no.66 of 1986 on  the file of the Sub Registrar, Purasavakkam.  The testator had two  daughters viz. Kausalya, the respondent herein (who is the elder  daughter) and one Saraswathi.  The appellant is the eldest son of the  said Saraswathi.  Apart from the appellant the said Saraswathi has two  more sons viz. Gopi and Manohar.  The testator appointed the appellant  as executor under the suit will and as such he alleged that is entitled to  get the probate.

The respondent filed a written statement contending that the will  dated 24.9.1986 alleged to have been executed by Singaravelu Nayagar  is a forged one and that the testator had executed a will dated  4.11.1982, much earlier to the execution of the will dated 24.9.1986  where under he bequeathed the property at No.16, Manicka Naicken  Street, Purasavakkam, Madras, giving equal share to both the  daughters.

The question involved in this case is a short one i.e. whether the  will dated 24.9.1986 executed by Singaravelu Nayagar was a valid one.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated  25.5.1996  held that the will dated 24.9.1986 was genuine and was not  a forged one.  The learned Single Judge took into consideration various  factors e.g. that the testator himself presented the will for execution,  and there was a dispute between the testator and his elder daughter and  hence he wanted to bequeath his properties to his second daughter and  the sons born to her, etc..   

In appeal the Division Bench of the Madras High Court set aside  the judgment of the learned Single Judge but without a proper  consideration of the various facts and circumstances of the case  mentioned by the learned Single Judge in his very elaborate judgment.

The Division Bench was evidently influenced by the fact that the  elder daughter was deprived of her share in her father’s property.   However, the Division Bench has not taken into consideration the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

various considerations which according to learned Single Judge  motivated the testator to deprive his elder daughter, the respondent  herein.   No doubt the Division Bench could have reversed the judgment  of the learned Single Judge but it should have done so after considering  inter alia the various factors which persuaded the learned Single Judge  to decide in favour of the appellant herein.  Since the Division Bench  has not done so we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Division  Bench cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside.  The matter is  remanded to the Division Bench for a fresh decision after considering  inter alia the various facts and circumstances of the case referred to by  the learned Single Judge and also the evidence and the various case law  on the point.

The Division Bench may consider the desirability of an early  disposal of the case since it is pending for a long time.  The appeal is  allowed.  No order as to costs.