PENTAKOTA SATYANARAYANA AND ORS. versus PENTAKOTA SEETHARATNAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 29-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PENTAKOTA SA TY ANARA Y ANA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PENTAKOTA SEETHARA TNAM AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER29, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Teslamentary Succession-Evidence Act, 
1872-Seclions 68, 114-Execution and proof of Will-Deceased father C 
executing Will in favour of appellants, children through second wife-Will 
attested-Altes/or examined proving sound disposing state of mind-Signature 
of sub-registrar at the time of registration-Written Statement filed by testator 
in a suit filed by alleged adopted son about execution of Will-Held, the 
execution of Will proved beyond doubt. 
D 
Will-Suspicious circumstances-Alleged adopted son claiming 
execution-Propounder merely present during registration-Held, mere 
presence of propounder is not a suspicious circumstance. 
Adoption-Proof of-Foster son claiming to have been adopted-Written E 
statement filed by adoptive father denying adoption-No date of adoplion-
No ceremony of venue of adoption nor any specific custom pleaded-Held, 
adoption not proved. 
One P father of the appellants got married with the first respondent. 
Since the marital life with the first wife was not very happy, P started living F 
with one A who was divorced from her first husband as per caste custom in 
the year 1954. A and P started living as man and wife in the same village 
itself. A was accepted as the second wife. P and A begot two sons, viz., the 
appellants. The second respondent is the youngest son of natural brother of 
P. His father and mother died when he was aged hardly 3 years. P brought G 
him up and fostered him. The appellants' father performed the marriage of 
his daughter in a befitting manner and printed invitation cards in his own 
name as father. He executed a Will regarding his properties and got it 
registered. Under the said Will, he made a provision to the first wife, - the 
first respondent herein for a decent living and given the rest of his properties 
719 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A to the appellants born through A (second wife). First wife of P filed a suit 
seeking a decree for maintenance with a charge on P's half share in the plaint 
schedule property and to provide her separate residence. It was stated in the 
plaint that P died intestate pending the suit and that the Will is neither true 
nor valid nor binding on her. She also denied the execution, attestation, 
B registration etc. It was claimed in the plaint that consequent on the death of 
P, the right of the plaintiffs against the estate of the deceased P comes into 
effect. 
The second respondent filed a suit seeking a decree for partition and 
separate possession of his half share in the family properties claiming for 
C the first time as the adopted son of P and his first wife. The appellants were 
added as LRs of the deceased first defendant. It was stated in the plaint that 
his adoptive parents requested the natural parents in the year 1966 to give 
him in adoption to them and he was given in adoption to P and that the adoption 
ceremony took place in accordance with Hindu law, customs and usage. It was 
further stated that P died intestate and on his death his share of the plaint 
D schedule properties devolved upon his widow and the adopted son and 
consequently he will be entitled to not only his half share as adopted son but 
also half share in the share of P. So in all he claimed 3/4th share in all the 
plaint A, Band C schedule properties in the plaint, and the remaining 1/4th 
share for the first wife. 
E 
The appellants' father P contested both the suits and filed written 
statement. He denied the adoption and stated that he came into contact with 
one A who divorced her husband as per their caste custom the year 1954 and 
they started living as man and wife and begot two sons and one daughter and 
brought them up and performed their marriages. It was further pleaded that 
p during the year 1980, he executed a Will in respect of his properties and got 
it registered. P died pending suit. The suits were decreed and the appeals by 
the appellants also dismissed. Before this Court, Appellant contended that 
the High Court and the Courts below cannot overlook Ex.89 a registered Will 
when they have recorded a finding that the Will is proved as incompliance 
with the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 though there is 
G no material on record to show that the Will was executed in suspicious 
circumstances to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.