VARGHESE C.PHILIP KUTTY Vs. VARGHESE MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant in O.S No.793 of 1998 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla is the appellant herein.

(2.) The facts in brief for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

(3.) The trial court basically went out to test the validity and genuineness of Ext.B1 Will and found that the 1 st defendant was unable to clear the suspicious circumstances around the execution of Ext.B1 Will. The prime reason given by the trial court for disbelieving Ext.B1 Will was that, the scribe was examined as an attesting witness, which is impermissible under law and that there is no indication as regards the presence of the scribe as an attesting witness in the body of the Will. Accordingly, ignoring the admission of the plaintiff, the trial court held that the entire property of Mathew Varghese and Annamma opens up for succession and accordingly, allowed the suit and passed a decree directing the plaint schedule property to be partitioned by metes and bounds and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7 share in the plaint schedule property. Though the 1 st defendant preferred an appeal, it was unsuccessful and by judgment dtd. 12/4/2013, the appeal was dismissed by the sub court, Thiruvalla. Against that judgment, the present appeal is preferred.