LAWS(SC)-1995-8-2

V M MATHEW Vs. V S SHARMA

Decided On August 29, 1995
V.M.MATHEW Appellant
V/S
V.S.SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the order dated November 16, 1994 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 547 of 1994. One V. S. Annama, sister of the appellant was alleged to have executed a Will on September 15, 1976, and said to have bequeathed her properties to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant is one of her brothers. Respondent No.1 is the sister and the second respondent is the son of the first respondent. On sudden demise of Annamma, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed L. A. O. P. No. 143 of 1980, in the Distric Court, Ernakulam under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Annamma and annexed the copy of the Will thereto.

(3.) The appellant had objected to the grant of letters of administration disputing the validity and genuineness of the Will and also for failure to implead necessary and proper parties therein. One of the testators, by name Kurian, was examined as P. W. 1. Though the trial Court dismissed the application on merits holding that the Will was not genuine and also on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties, in appeal, the High Court vacated the findings of the District Judge on the first point and upheld that the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal. Respondents thereafter filed another application being L. A. O. P. No. 149 of 1988 for grant of letters of administration which on caveat being entered, was converted into a suit, namely, O.S.No 2 of 1990. The appellant sought to rely on the deposition of Kurian and he sought to bring on record that evidence under Section 33 of thr Indian Evidence Act (for Short,'the Act'),the reception of which was objected to by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was upheld by the trial Judge. On revision, it was affirmed by the High Court. Hence this appeal pursuant to leave granted by us.