P DASAN Vs. SOOSAMMA @ SOOSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the essential question that arises for consideration in this case is the genuineness of Ext.A19 will, which is alleged to have been executed by one Pavithran, who is the brother of the defendant in this case and the husband of the 1st plaintiff and also the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3.

(2.) LATE Pavithran obtained the plaint schedule property as per the Ext.A1 gift deed dated 16.07.1980. As per the case put forward by the plaintiffs, Pavithran left for Banglore and started a studio there. With the passage of time Pavithran and the 1st defendant got married and in that wedlock two children were born to them. Unfortunately, according to the plaintiffs, Pavithran became ill and he had to undergo long treatment and enormous expenses were incurred in that regard. He developed renal failure and also problem with his eye sight and on 20.10.2001 Pavithran passed away.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant, who is the brother of Pavithran, sold away his properties obtained under Ext.A1 partition deed and was rendered homeless. Pavithran allowed him to occupy the house when he left to Banglore on the understanding that when he returns and seeks for surrender of the property, possession would given to Pavithran. After the death of Pavithran, the plaintiffs returned home and sought handing over of the possession of the property which the defendant declined. As a result of mediation at the instance of the local people, Ext.A20 agreement was entered into. As per that agreement, the defendant agreed to hand over the possession of the building and the property on condition that the plaintiffs prove that they are the legal heirs of late Pavithran. Ultimately that resulted in the present suit being filed.