GOVINDAN NAIR Vs. JANAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 767/97 is filed against the order in I.A. 2858/95 in O. S. 263/92 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam. C.R.P. No. 774/97 is directed against the order in I.A. 311/96 in O. S. 314/93 of the same court. C.R.P. No. 779/97 is filed challenging the order in I.A. 2860/95 in O. S. 115/93 of the same court. Since the above C. R. Ps. are preferred against the common order passed by the lower court in the above I. As. and the contention raised in all the three C. R. Ps. are identical, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) O. S. 263/92 is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. O. S. 115/93 is filed by the very same plaintiffs against the same defendants for permanent injunction and damages, O. S. 314/93 is filed by the 4th defendant in O. S. 263/92 seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suits Kunhukutty Amma, the 1st plaintiff in O. S. 263/92 and O. S. 115/93 and the 1st defendant in O. S. 314/93 passed away. Thereafter the 2nd plaintiff in O. S. 263/92 and O. S. 115/93 filed I.A. Nos. 2858/95 & 2860/95 respectively to record himself and his brother Ramankutty Nair as the only legal representatives of the deceased Kunhukutty Amma on the strength of a Will alleged to have been executed by her in their favour. Those petitions were opposed by the sister Janaki Amma who is one of the defendants in the suits. The plaintiff in O. S. 314/93 filed I.A. 311/96 in that suit to implead the three children of deceased Kunhukutty Amma as the legal representatives in the suit. All the three petitions were tried jointly by the lower court and as per the impugned common order the lower court dismissed I.A. 2858/95 in O. S. 263/92, 2860/95 in O. S. 115/93 and allowed I.A. 311/96 in O. S. 314/93 impleading all the three children of Kunhukutty Amma as the legal representatives, finding the Will alleged to have been executed by Kunhukutty Amma bequeathing the properties in favour of the petitioner and his brother in those I. As. is not genuine. Hence these revisions are preferred before this Court against those orders.

(3.) Ext. A1 is the Will alleged to have been executed by deceased Kunhukutty Amma in favour of the petitioner and his brother on 28.8.1984. The revision petitioner examined the brother of the testator as PW 1 and the Sub Registrar who registered the Will as PW 2. The petitioner also produced Exts. A2 and A3. The lower court found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner is insufficient to dispel the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will and therefore the Will cannot be accepted as genuine and as such refused to record the petitioner and his brother as the legal representatives of their mother deceased Kunhukutty Amma on the strength of Ext. A1 Will.