MANGADATH DEVI AMMA Vs. MANGADATH PARVATHYKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. She and the three defendants are the children of late Lakshmi Amma and Appu alias Paithal Kidave. The 2nd defendant supported the plaintiff. The court below upheld Ext. B1 Will of Lakshmi Amma, as propounded by defendants 1 and 3 and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. At the outset, we may note that there is no controversy, before us on the findings of the court below as regards proof of Ext. B1 Will, in as much as, D.W.2 is admittedly the attestor of Ext. B1. The plaintiff had also not tendered any oral evidence before the court below.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argued that going by the allotments under Ext. B1, item A schedule therein which is allotted to the plaintiff is not a piece over which the testator Lakshmi Amma had title. This has to be taken as a suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will, it is argued. The premise of this argument is that the plaintiff was widowed in her young age and had a son and the mother with whom the plaintiff was living would not have, in all prudent reasonableness, intended to disinherit the plaintiff.

(3.) Before proceeding further, we may notice that all that the 2nd defendant got was a life estate over C schedule in Ext. A1. She supported the plaintiff in the court below. She has not filed any appeal.