Hyderabad: A division bench of Justice Ponugoti Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court scripted history by drafting court orders, in a case of a property dispute, in the Telugu language for the first time, on popular demand from the public to publish court orders in vernacular or local languages.
Following in the footsteps of the Kerala High Court, which was the first to publish orders in the vernacular, the Telangana High Court uploaded the Telugu order, along with the English version, on its website.
The division bench, in its order over a property dispute between siblings, ruled that a registered ‘will’ can be declared void over suspicious circumstances in the execution of the ‘will’.
The court was dealing with an appeal filed by Kaukuntla Chandra Reddy in 2012, challenging a trial court decision that declared a ‘will’ executed in his favour by his deceased mother as void, on a complaint by his brother Muthyam Reddy.
The trial court concluded that the cross-examination of witnesses pointed to several gaps in the execution of the ‘will’.
Chandra Reddy claimed their mother Salamma executed the ‘will’, for a 4.08-acre plot in Macha Bollaram village in Secunderabad, in 2003, following which he applied for mutation after his mother died in 2005.
Muthyam Reddy opposed it, contending that as per an oral settlement with their mother, the land should be halved, with each getting 2.04 acres. Further, he submitted that a layout was made on his portion in his mother’s lifetime and the agreement deed also showed the same.
Declaring the ‘will’ null and void, the trial stated that there were extensive interpolations committed by the defence witnesses in the examination and that Salamma’s thumb imprint was missing from the front page and other places of the Will document, besides having no attesters to it as well.
Chandra Reddy, in the chief examination, deposed that he got the ‘will’ prepared as desired by Salamma, and that after explaining the contents of the Will deed in the presence of another person, she put her thumb impression, admitting to the contents of the Will deed. Chandra said he and the other person signed the Will as witnesses in her presence, following which they went to the sub-registrar’s office.
Later, he deposed that mother subscribed her thumb mark at the sub-registrar’s office in the presence of the sub-registrar, but admitted that the sub-registrar has not made any endorsement that the ‘will’ was read to the executant and in his presence, the executant has subscribed her thumb mark. Based on the suspicious circumstances, the trial court declared the ‘will’ as not valid.
Challenging the trial court ruling, Chandra Reddy approached the High Court. However, the division bench made it clear that the reasons assigned by the trial court in declaring the ‘will’ void were right and upheld the decision.
