M M SREEMATHI Vs. T V RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery in O.S.No.301 of 2000, followed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery in A.S.No.61 of 2006, the plaintiffs in the suit have come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, allegedly collected by the defendant, from the District Court, Thalassery, from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme, on the death of one Radhakrishnan, who was the husband of the defendant. Radhakrishnan died on 19.11.1995. According to the plaintiffs, Radhakrishnan had executed Exhibit-A1 unregistered Will on 31.10.1995, and as per Exhibit-A1 Will, Radhakrishnan had bequeathed his entire assets, both movables and immovables, including the amount to be disbursed from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme also, to the plaintiffs. It is their case that the defendant had unauthorisedly and illegally collected the amount of Rs. 10,000/- disbursed on account of the death of Radhakrishnan from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme.

(3.) The defendant strongly denied the execution of the Will. She contended that the Will is an out come of forgery and that deceased Radhakrishnan had never executed such a Will. She had disputed the handwriting in the Will as well as the signature in the Will. According to her, Radhakrishnan had no occasion to execute such a Will and the signatures and the handwriting in the Will are not that of Radhakrishnan. According to her, Radhakrishnan was suffering from AIDS and finally, he succumbed to the said disease. When the plaintiffs were claiming that Exhibit-A1 Will was executed in their favour by Radhakrishnan in the year 1995 itself, they could have claimed the amount from the said Scheme in the year 1995 itself. The defendant was not, in fact, made known about the actual disease of Radhakrishnan for long. The plaintiffs had prevented the attempt of the defendant to live along with the deceased Radhakrishnan. According to the defendant, when she had forwarded a demand for partition and separate possession of the property jointly owned by the plaintiffs and Radhakrishnan, Exhibit-A1 forged Will was created by the plaintiffs for forwarding unnecessary claims in respect of the properties of the deceased.