LAWS(SC)-2001-11-103

S SUNDARESA PAI Vs. SUMANGALA T PAI

Decided On November 28, 2001
S.SUNDARESA PAI Appellant
V/S
SUMANGALA T.PAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal are daughters of one Indira Bai. Appellants are her three sons, Indira Bai died on 13th November, 1981.

(2.) In April, 1983, respondent No. 1 instituted a suit against the appellants, respondent No. 2 and her father claiming that Indira Bai died intestate on 13th November, 1981 and she is entitled to 1/6th share in the properties left behind by her. She also pleaded that if there is any Will that is forged. All the defendants, namely, father, three brothers and one sister of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 took the stand that Indira Bai had left behind a Will dated 26th August, 1981 and her properties are to be dealt with as per the Will. The father of respondent No. 1 who was defendant No. 1 in the suit died during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) On appreciation of evidence the trial Court held that the Will had been dully proved and the suit was dismissed. In the first appeal, the Judgment of the trial Court was reversed by the High Court. The findings of the trial Court upholding the Will dated 26th August, 1981 were reversed by the impugned Judgment. It was held that the Will had not been proved and the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in the assets of Indira Bai. Since the husband of Indira Bai died during the pendency of the suit and respondent No.1 disputed the execution of Will by her father and proceeding on the basis that her father died intestate, the plaintiff by amending the plaint claimed 1/5th share instead of 1/6th in the estate of Indira Bai. The High Court directed remand of the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of the findings in respect of the Will dated 26th August, 1981. The trial Court was directed to decide whether respondent No. 1 inherited 1/6th or 1/5th share in the estate of Indira Bai. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal by sons of Indira Bai. The other sister supporting the appellants is respondent No. 2 in the appeal.