Justice N. Sathish Kumar clarified that at the stage of execution, what is required is only a “minimum enquiry” — namely, to verify whether the Will is prima facie valid and can be admitted in evidence. The Court emphasized that “not a roving enquiry” is needed at this juncture; a full-fledged proof may follow during the proceedings.
[28/10, 19:48] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxcyYEneFwHyRCDvS2jbongyLKoC_K39kV?si=Ye02gV3bDq5oOXXc
[28/10, 19:48] Sekarreporter: Kamalammal (died) & E. Rajendran v. Venu Reddy (died) & Ors.
Madras High Court — N. Sathish Kumar, J.
CRP [NPD] No. 17 of 2019 & CMP No. 14611 of 2022 — Decided on 15.07.2025
Facts
One Kamalammal had filed O.S. No. 33 of 1974 before the District Munsif, Ponneri, seeking partition of the family property.
The suit was decreed in her favour for 1/6th share, confirmed successively in appeal (A.S. No. 1 of 1979) and second appeal (S.A. No. 1564 of 1980), both dismissed by 1988.
Subsequently, final decree proceedings were initiated, and a final decree was passed on 24.04.2008. However, Kamalammal died on 22.04.2008, just before the pronouncement.
The revision petitioner, claiming to be her legatee under a registered Will dated 09.07.1999, filed an Execution Petition (E.P. No. 6 of 2013 in E.A. No. 61 of 2014) to execute the decree as Kamalammal’s legal representative.
The respondents opposed, contending that:
The Will was not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
None of the attesting witnesses to the Will had been examined.
The Executing Court accepted this objection and dismissed the application for impleadment, holding that the Will was not proved in the manner known to law.
The petitioner, therefore, invoked Section 115 CPC before the High Court.
Issues
1. Whether, in execution proceedings, the legatee under a Will must fully prove the Will before being impleaded as legal representative of the deceased decree-holder.
2. Whether the Executing Court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment without affording the legatee an opportunity to prove the Will.
Held
The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order of the Executing Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioner to prove the Will as required by law.
Reasoning
1. Nature of Enquiry at Execution Stage:
Justice N. Sathish Kumar clarified that at the stage of execution, what is required is only a “minimum enquiry” — namely, to verify whether the Will is prima facie valid and can be admitted in evidence.
The Court emphasized that “not a roving enquiry” is needed at this juncture; a full-fledged proof may follow during the proceedings.
2. Proof of Will:
The Court noted that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a Will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness, if available.
Here, one attesting witness was already dead, and steps had been initiated to examine the surviving witness.
The Executing Court erred in dismissing the application prematurely without affording an opportunity to do so.
3. Registered Will as Prima Facie Evidence:
Since the Will in question was a registered document, the Court observed that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prove it by examining any attesting witness or a person acquainted with the witness’s signature.
4. Remand for Fresh Orders:
The matter was remitted to the Executing Court, with directions to:
Allow the petitioner to prove the Will “in the manner known to law”;
Thereafter, proceed with the execution petition expeditiously;
Conduct only the minimum enquiry necessary for admissibility of the Will in evidence
Ratio Decidendi
> “At the stage of execution, the enquiry regarding the validity of a Will produced by a legatee need only be minimal — confined to its admissibility in evidence. The Court must afford an opportunity to the legatee to prove the Will in the manner known to law before dismissing the execution application.
This decision carefully delineates the scope of enquiry in execution proceedings involving testamentary succession. Justice Sathish Kumar adopts a procedurally pragmatic and equitable approach, balancing technical rigor with substantive justice.
1. Reinforcing Section 68 Standards:
The Court does not dilute the statutory requirement of proving a Will through attesting witnesses but emphasizes procedural fairness — the petitioner must first be allowed to satisfy this requirement before being non-suited.
2. Limiting Judicial Formalism:
By holding that only a “minimum enquiry” is warranted, the Court curbs overzealous proceduralism in execution courts that often defeats decree-holders’ rights by demanding exhaustive proof at preliminary stages.
3. Testamentary Rights in Execution:
The ruling strengthens the position of legatees seeking to execute decrees in the name of deceased decree-holders. It clarifies that impleadment as a legal representative does not require prior probate or exhaustive proof where the Will is registered and undisputed prima facie.
4. Judicial Economy:
The remand with directions for expeditious disposal underscores the Court’s intent to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure speedy execution — often the most neglected phase of civil litigation.
Key Takeaway
> The Executing Court must not dismiss an impleadment or execution application merely for want of attesting witness examination; it must first afford a fair opportunity to the legatee to prove the Will. Proof precedes rejection.
This judgment exemplifies the Madras High Court’s humanized approach in execution matters — focusing on substance over form. It reflects a trend in recent judicial thought where registered Wills are treated with presumptive validity, subject to subsequent formal proof, thereby aligning procedural law with pragmatic justice.
