HC Allows Balakrishna’s Plea Against Lakshmi Parvathi’s Post in Basavatarakam Medical Trust

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court allowed a petition filed by actor Nandamuri Balakrishna and late Nandamuri Harikrishna, sons of N.T. Rama Rao, to set aside the trial court orders, which paves the way for Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi’s appointment as the managing trustee of Basavatarakam Memorial Medical Trust in Banjara Hills.

Justice G. Radha Rani set aside the orders of the trial court’s order in 2018, which allowed examining one witness to the supplementary will, which was allegedly executed by NTR on November 18, 1995 in the presence of two witnesses J. Venkata Subbaiah and Y. Tirupathi Rao, as attestors of the said will that reportedly authorises Lakshmi Parvathi’s appointment as a managing trustee of the Basavatarakam Medical Trust.

As the dispute over the will was raised by NTR’s children, the issue went to the trial court. The two witness-attestors have since passed away.

Lakshmi Parvathi filed a petition before the trial court to confirm her appointment and direct the trust members and their henchmen against interfering with her administration. She also requested the trial court to issue summons to one Y. Madhav, son of Tirupathi Rao, to identify his father’s signature. The trial court had earlier rejected her application as the other witness was alive at that time. Later, the second witness also died and the trial court allowed Subbaiah’s son to identify the signature and handwriting.

Prasad Rao stated in his affidavit that his father had passed away nine years back and that his father informed him about the execution of the alleged will dated November 18, 1995 of which he was an attestor. The said statement made a grounds for Lakshmi Parvathi to be appointed as the managing trustee.

This was objected to by Balakrishna, Harikrishna and the Basavatarakam Medical Trust. They approached the High Court contending that the attestor’s son was neither a signatory to the alleged will nor was the will executed in his presence.

Justice Radha Rani, recently allowed their prayer and set aside the trial court orders on the grounds that the genuineness of the will could only be established in the manner provided under the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

As per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if no such attesting witness was found, it must not only be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness was in his handwriting. But, in this case, the son of a deceased witness was not in a position to identify the handwriting and signature on the document.

Moreover, the court pointed out that summons under Order XVI Rule 10 of CPC had not been served to the attestors, which is mandatory for invoking section 69 of the Act. Saying so, it set aside the trial court orders.