SARAMMA Vs. KOCHANANNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3/1992 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. The proceedings for letters of administration was originally instituted as L.A.O.P. No. 124/1990 and in view of the contest, the same was converted as O.S.3/1992. The sole question which arose for consideration before the court below is whether Ext.A1 will annexed to the application for letters of administration was genuine or not.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the testator Sri. Kochudevassy executed the will on 24.5.1980. Four days thereafter, he died on 28.5.1980. Kochudevassy was bachelor. The plaintiff is the cousin of the testator-daughter of Jacob who is the father's brother of the testator. We find from the judgment that the plaintiff is wrongly described as niece. Since the plaintiff is the testator's father's brother's daughter, she is only a cousin and not niece. The defendants 23 to 30 and 33 to 35 contended that the will is a concocted one. The defendants are also the relatives-legal heirs of the deceased Kochudevassy. The court below, adverting to the evidence available on record, held that the will is not genuine. Hence the appeal.

(3.) Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian canvassed for the position that the court below erred in the very approach regarding the alleged suspicious circumstances under which the will is said to have been executed. It is submitted that in the absence of a specific plea regarding suspicious circumstances, the court cannot presume that the will was executed under suspicious circumstances. It was also contended that for the only reason of delay in filing the application for letters of administration, inference against the plaintiff cannot be drawn regarding the genuineness of the will. Still further it is contended that the plaintiff was not given sufficient opportunity before the court below to establish her case.