GOURISANKAR Vs. M K VANAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAKSHMI Nethiyaramma had six sons and a daughter. The plaintiff, Sankarankutty Achan was one of them. The defendant is the daughter of another son of Lakshmi Nethiyaramma, late Pankajakshan Pillai.

(2.) THE plaint schedule property admittedly belonged to late Lakshmi Nethiyaramma. She put up the house in the property and was residing therein. There is not much dispute regarding the fact that till 1985 the defendant was staying with Lakshmi Nethiyaramma and was looking after her. Lakshmi Nethiyaramma on 21.5.1979 executed Ext.B2 Will, genuineness of which is not in dispute. The allegation is that in 1983 the testator cancelled Ext.B2 Will and executed Ext.A1 Will. While under Ext.B2 Will the sole beneficiary was the defendant, under Ext.A1 Will it was the plaintiff and four others. Under Ext.A1 Will the defendant was totally excluded. Even after the death of Lakshmi Nethiyaramma according to the defendant, she continued to reside in the property as a matter of right. The plaintiff on the other hand would say that she was permitted to continue the residence in the house. According to the original plaintiff, he was employed outside and was not in a position to reside in the house at that point of time. Later when the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the premises, she refused to do so and raised untenable contentions and hence the suit.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit the plaintiff expired and his legal representatives were brought on the party array.