LAKSHMI Vs. NALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an preferred against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda in Succ.O.P.No. 31 of 2001. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows: Petitioners herein are the mother and nephew of one Jayaprakash, who died on 16.10.2001 and the respondent is his widow. The family of Jayaprakash consisted of the mother, son, sister and wife. It is the case of the petitioners that Jayaprakash has executed a Will on 12.4.2000 by virtue of which all his assets were to devolve upon the mother, viz, the first petitioner and the nephew, viz, Sivan who is the second petitioner. In case of the mother pre-deceasing Jayapraksh the assets have to go to the other children of the first petitioner's daughter Sarala, viz., Haridas and Rajesh. According to the petitioners, the respondent was strained and she had voluntarily deserted him and never cared to look after him and therefore he had disinherited her from getting any property. Therefore, on the basis of the Will they claim for issuance of succession certificate to realize the amount due to Mr.Jayaprakash from banks and other institutions.

(2.) On the other hand, the respondent would contend that the averment in the petition that she had deserted jayaprakash is incorrect. He was a Government employee working in different places and during his absence and while the respondent was residing with the mother and thereafter with the family of the sister of Jayaprakash she was habitually ill-treated which forced her to be away from the matrimonial home. The said Jayaprakash had written letter to her even in September, 2000 expressing his wish to join her and also in the year 1997 he had made her nominee of the savings bank accounts. It is contended that the Will is manipulated most probably on a blank paper which contained the signature of Jayaprakash in order to deprive the valid right of the respondent an therefore contends that a succession certificate as prayed for cannot issued in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) In the trial court, PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 to 3 were examined Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.B1 were marked. On analysis of the evidence, the trial court find that the wife had deserted the husband but came to the conclusion that the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and there was doubt regarding genuineness of the execution itself and therefore found the plea of genuineness of Will against the petitioners and ultimately granted a succession certificate in favour of the first petitioner and the respondent. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed.