P.R.RAJAPPAN Vs. SUKUMARAN, S/O.RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. A preliminary decree was passed directing division of plaint items 1 and 2 into eight equal shares and to allot one such share each to the plaintiffs. One such share was allotted to the first defendant/appellant and one such share was jointly allotted to defendants 2 to 7, who are the legal representatives of Madhavan, the deceased son of Raman and Paru. The appellant herein set up a Will in respect of item No.1. That Will dated 3.1.1992 (as shown in figures) and 8.1.1992 (as written in words), according to the respondents, was a fabricated document. Among the two witnesses/attestors to Ext.B1 Will, one is the husband of the plaintiff's wife's younger sister and the other witness is stated to be the husband of another sister of the first defendant's wife. So many incongruities were pointed out by the courts below to hold that Ext.B1 Will is not a true and genuine Will. Among other grounds it was pointed out that the building No.4/129 shown in the Will was not in existence in January 1992. The evidence would show that the said number was assigned only during the period 1995- 2000. The extent of all the items of properties shown in that document are also found to be irreconcilable. The courts below have stated sufficient reasons to hold that Ext.B1 is not a true and genuine Will.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would submit that the courts below were not justified in holding that Ext.B1 is not a true Will executed by Raman and Paru merely by stating that there is no similarity of signatures in Ext.B1 Will and Ext.A2 gift deed, when Ext.A2 was executed about 10 years prior to January 1992. Learned counsel submits that it is common knowledge that there would be difference in the signatures because of lapse of time and also because the executants were not so literate enough to have consistent signatures.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below were persuaded to hold that Ext.B1 is not a true Will because of the dissimilarities in the signatures found in Ext.B1 when compared with the signatures of the executants in other document. It is further submitted that merely by such a comparison, the courts below should not have jumped to a conclusion that Ext.B1 is not a true and genuine Will.