RACHEL SUKUMARI Vs. SAMUEL RAJASHEKAR MATHIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the trial Court, granting the letter of administration in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri B. V. Krishna on the one side and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, Sri KM. Nataraj on the other. I have also gone through meticulously, the Trial Court records. 2a. The learned Counsel for the respondent 3-Sri S. K. Acharya had adopted the arguments of Sri KM. Nataraj.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued by Sri B. V. Krishna that the Trial Court did not pass a just judgment in the case, based on material evidence of record. It was also argued by him that the Trial Court did not appreciate the suspicious circumstances in the execution of Ex. P. 2-Will. According to Sri Krishna, the following are the suspicious circumstances: (i) That the disputed Will had been placed before the Court for the first time by the respondent-plaintiff after 20 years of its execution by the testator; (ii) That though the testator had equal love and affection towards all his children, the bequeaths made by him to all the children did not reflect the said fact, inasmuch as there was disproportionate shares in the bequeaths made by the testator.