H. V. NIRMALA & ANR. versus R. SHARMILA & ANR.

H. V. NIRMALA & ANR. versus R. SHARMILA & ANR.

The plaintiff proved the registered Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 through her own evidence and by examining one attesting witness. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree, it is not binding on her. Therefore, she is entitled to claim a declaration as owner of the properties bequeathed to her by the testator.

Parties
Appellant: H. V. Nirmala; Appellant: Rakesh Babu; Respondent: R. Sharmila; Respondent: Umesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Will, Partition, Compromise Decree, Secondary Evidence
Property Law Succession Law Will Partition Compromise Decree Secondary Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. V. Nirmala

Appellant

Rakesh Babu

Appellant

R. Sharmila

Respondent

Umesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Will dated 12.03.1980 was proved in accordance with law
  2. 2 Whether the compromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996 is binding on the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved the registered Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 through her own evidence and by examining one attesting witness. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree, it is not binding on her. Therefore, she is entitled to claim a declaration as owner of the properties bequeathed to her by the testator.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court judgment upheld
  • Plaintiff entitled to a declaration of ownership of bequeathed properties