GOPALAN Vs. CHANDRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS it the duty of the propounder of a Will to prove its genuineness and to dispel suspicious circumstances, if any, surrounding its execution, even when the adverse party does not specifically deny the existence of the Will, and even when admits its existence? Can the doctrine of dependent relative revocation absolve the burden of the propounder of the earlier Will from proving its genuineness or its due execution, or to dispel the suspicious circumstance, surrounding its execution?

(2.) BY propounding Ext.A1 Will dated 24.1.1989 allegedly executed by two sisters, namely, deceased Mathu and Paru, the plaintiff has forwarded a claim for partition of the property covered by Ext.A1, after the death of Mathu and during the life time of Paru, who is the first defendant. Mathu died on 2.9.1991, thereby the plaintiff, based on Ext.A1 Will claims half share over the property on the averment that the bequest through Ext.A1 joint Will to the extent it relates to the disposition by Mathu has taken effect on her death.

(3.) THE plaintiff averred that Mathu died after prolonged illness, on 2.9.1991 and she had a flaccid mental faculty for about six months before her death. Even though the plaintiff has not revealed anything regarding the execution of Ext.B1 Will dated 15.5.1991, it seems that the aforesaid averment was deliberately made by eying on the execution of Ext.B1 by the testatrices, in order to bring out a suspicious circumstance in the execution of Ext.B1. Even when the written statement was filed by the first defendant on 25.11.1991, the plaint was belatedly amended through order dated 5.9.1992 in I.A.No.1142 of 1992 by incorporating paragraph No.6A in the plaint and impleading the 2nd defendant who is the donee in Ext.B2. Paragraph No.6A of the plaint reads as follows: