38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, November 08, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

A Supreme Court Judgment brings 65-Year-Old Family Dispute on Property to an end [READ JUDGMENT]

By Ghazal Bhootra      20 July, 2020 01:45 PM      0 Comments
Judgment brings Family Dispute on Property to end

A dispute that ensued in the Naidu Family in the year 1955 due to a Will has finally been decided upon on July 17, 2020, by the Supreme Court. The apex court dismissed the appeals against the judgment of 2007 in the Madras High Court and upheld its decision in the matter.

The facts of the case were such- Lakshmiah Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu were the sons of one R. Venkitusamy Naidu. Rangaswami was married to one R. Krishnammal and the couple had no issues. Lakshmiah had four sons, viz., Bakthavatsalam, Venkatapathy, Jagannathan, and Ramaswamy.

The argument within the family began after the passing of Rangaswami Naidu in 1955. In a hearing under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Magistrate was to resolve the altercation of possession between Rangaswami's widow and nephew on one side and Lakshmiah and his sons on another side. The first side was of the view that Rangaswami passed away after executing a Will. The Magistrate did not consider the Will, adjudging that the second side was to get the possession of the property. 

But the altercation did not end there. In 1958, Krishnammal, the widow of Rangaswami brought the matter to court. The matter ended in a compromise. Disputes resurfaced when two persons named R. Alagiriswami Naidu and V. Kalyanaswami (family members) brought the case before the court again in 1963 and this also resulted in a compromise. Ramaswamy, son of Lakshmaih, and Krishnammal passed away in 1976 and 1977 respectively. After their demise, Alagiriswami Naidu filed for partition. Sub Judge, Coimbatore then ordered a partition. 

In 1982, widow, daughters of Ramaswamy Naidu, and sons of Lakshmiah Naidu filed a matter before the court against A. Alagiriswami on the basis of some sale transactions done by him on the strength of a Will by Rangaswami Naidu. Nephews of Rangaswami Naidu and legatees under the will were the defendants other than A. Alagiriswami. The plaintiffs demanded a declaration of title and sought an injunction. R. Alagiriswami filed for partition as well in 1983. 

The matters were heard together. According to the legal heirs of Lakshmiah Naidu, the Will was produced using methods involving undue influence and coercion. The suit filed by R. Alagiriswami was dismissed however the other was decreed. The first appellate court overruled the former suit. Then courts found no proof about a partition in 1932. Allowing appeal, the Madras High Court in 2007, backed the judgment of the trial court. 

In 2008, many individuals appealed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, in a judgment that was held on July 17, 2020. 

Section 145 CrPC proceedings were started due to the altercation between family members based on a Will that was assumptively made by Rangaswami Naidu. 

The issue brought before the Trial Court in the 1982/1983 suits was related to the authenticity of the will. 

The Trial Court found the will to be unauthentic and hence, not valid. Later, the first appellate found it valid. The High court found that the Will was not proved. 

On July 17, 2020, judgment, the Supreme Court, discussed the law with regards to the proof of execution of a Will, at length, and then said: " We would arrive at the conclusion that the will was indeed executed by R. Naidu was his last will." 

Though the highest court did not agree with the High Court judgment in relation to the authenticity of the Will, in the end, it backed the final conclusions that were pronounced which were on the basis of other aspects of the case. 

 

 

 

[READ JUDGMENT] 



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

arrest-and-remand-illegal-if-written-grounds-not-provided-two-hours-before-production-sc
Trending Judiciary
Arrest and Remand Illegal if Written Grounds Not Provided Two Hours Before Production: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules arrests and remands illegal if written grounds aren’t furnished at least two hours before the accused’s production before a Magistrate.

07 November, 2025 04:20 PM
adult-christian-daughter-not-entitled-to-maintenance-us-125-crpc-unless-disabled-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Adult Christian Daughter Not Entitled to Maintenance u/s 125 CrPC Unless Disabled: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court held that an adult Christian daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless unable to maintain herself due to disability.

07 November, 2025 04:57 PM

TOP STORIES

no-law-student-shall-be-barred-from-exams-or-academic-progression-due-to-attendane-shortage-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
No Law Student Shall Be Barred From Exams Or Academic Progression Due To Attendane Shortage: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC rules no law student can be barred from exams or academic progress for low attendance; directs BCI to rethink attendance norms and strengthen grievance systems.

03 November, 2025 04:03 PM
mere-refusal-to-marry-does-not-constitute-instigation-under-section-306-ipc-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
Mere Refusal To Marry Does Not Constitute Instigation Under Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court [Read Order]

Mere refusal to marry does not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC, rules Supreme Court, quashing FIR and holding no abetment in emotional distress cases.

03 November, 2025 04:15 PM
government-cannot-unilaterally-expand-labour-dispute-scope-without-workers-demand-himachal-pradesh-hc
Trending Judiciary
Government cannot unilaterally expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Government cannot suo motu expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand, rules Himachal Pradesh High Court, holding termination issues need separate notice.

03 November, 2025 04:21 PM
child-welfare-committee-cannot-direct-police-to-register-fir-allahabad-hc
Trending Judiciary
Child Welfare Committee Cannot Direct Police to Register FIR: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

Child Welfare Committees cannot direct police to register FIRs, rules Allahabad High Court, holding their powers are limited to children needing care and protection.

03 November, 2025 04:29 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email