MATHEW JACOB Vs. SALESTINE JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the sons of late J. Massey. They have felt aggrieved for the grant of letter of administration in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Additional District Judge Vide order dated 1st August, 1996. The main cause of appellants' grievance is that the deceased J. Massey never executed the alleged Will. The purported signatures of J. Massey on the alleged 'Will' had been forged, even otherwise the alleged `Will create suspicion. It is not a genuine `Will' because in no circumstances the testator could have deprived his natural legal heirs from inheritance in preference to respondent No.1. Moreover, the `Will' had not been proved properly. Only one attesting witness Shri Dev Raj was adduced, whose statement could not be relied upon. No explanation has been rendered by the respondent for non-production of the second witness.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge, let us have quick glance to the facts of this case. Smt. Selestine Jacob respondent No.1 herein was the second wife of deceased J. Massey. She married the deceased in the year 1949, from this wedlock they had been blessed with three children i.e. two sons and one daughter. Deceased J. Massey had five children from his first wife. Similarly, present respondent No.1 has one son from her first husband. J. Massey died at Delhi on 27th December, 1990. After his death, respondent No.1 claimed right, title and interest in the immovable property in question on the basis of this `Will'. To prove her right she set up this unregistered `Will' dated 6th September, 1977 in her petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act alleging therein that deceased lift the immovable property in her favour in exclusion to her other legal heirs.

(3.) Objections were filed by the present appellants on the grounds enumerated above. They denied the signature of J Massey on the `Will'. Moreover, according to them the deceased was not the exclusive owner of the property in question. He never used to write his name as J. Massey. He had good relations with his sons rather was not happy with the respondent No. 1. Attesting witness was a procured witness. According to them the `Will' being a nullity no letter of administration could have been issued on that basis. By the impugned order all objections raised by these appellants were rejected.