Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Kalindi Venkata Subbaraju & Ors.
Respondent: Chintalapati Subbaraju & Ors.
Hon’ble Justice J.M. Shelat, J.C. Shah and S.M. Sikri, JJ
Somaraju died on 29th March, 1921, bequeathing (distribution of assets through Will) all his properties to his wife, Surayamma, by a Will dated March 26, 1921. Sitaramaraju filed a suit seeking a declaration that Somaraju’s Will was invalid as he was a minor and of unsound mind at the time of executing the Will. The suit was resolved through a compromise where Sitaramaraju received 26 out of the 57 acres of land, and the rest was retained by Surayamma. Subsequently, Surayamma settled part of the land in favour of her two daughters, who were the mothers of Plaintiff 1 and 2 and Defendant 6 (present appellants).
The present appellants obtained a deed of surrender (a legal document through which ownership is transferred) from their mother and filed a suit contending that they were the nearest reversioners ( who have nearest vested rights in a future estate) of Somaraju and that the deed was collusive, challenging the validity of the Will. The respondents argued that the Will was valid, the compromise decree was binding, and they were estopped (legally restricted) from challenging the Will or the decree. The trial court held that the Will was valid and Somaraju was a major and of sound disposing mind when he executed it. The High Court confirmed the trial court’s decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the decisions of the High Court and the Trial Court, holding that there was ample evidence that Somaraju executed the Will and was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time. The Court stated that the burden of proof that Somaraju was a major and could competently execute the Will was on the respondents who relied on the Will. The Supreme Court noted that neither the daughters nor the appellants had previously raised any contention regarding the Will’s validity until the present suit was filed. Additionally, the authority of Surayamma over the properties was never challenged. This conduct was consistent with the understanding that Somaraju was a major and of sound disposing mind when the Will was executed.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Will, making it clear that the responsibility to prove the testator was of sound mind and a major rest with the party relying on the Will. The Court pointed out that neither the daughters nor the appellants had questioned the Will’s validity until this case was filed, and Surayamma’s authority over the properties was never challenged. Their long-standing acceptance of the situation strongly indicated that Somaraju was indeed capable of executing the Will. This ruling highlight that delaying objections and acting in accordance with a Will for years can create an estoppel in the eyes of the law.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.