LAWS(KER)-2017-2-96

GEETHAMANI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. THACHATTU SANKARANKUTTY MENON, D/O. KAITHAKKATTU KARTHYAYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT CHITTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. Vs. PREMAKUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. KUNNAMPUZHATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA, VAILATHUR VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 680506.

Decided On February 08, 2017
Geethamani, Aged 55 Years, W/O. Thachattu Sankarankutty Menon, D/O. Kaithakkattu Karthyayani Amma, Residing At Chittur Village, Desom, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District. Appellant
V/S
Premakumari, Aged 56 Years, D/O. Kunnampuzhathu Parukutty Amma, Vailathur Village, Desom, Chavakkad Taluk 680506. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad in O.S. No.283/1999 followed by those of the I Additional District Court, Thrissur in A.S. No.126/2005, the plaintiff in O.S.No.283/1999 has come up in this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit was originally one for declaration that Ext. B3 Will dated 06.04.1984 registered as deed No.4/1984 of the Andathodu Sub Registry Office was illegal and void and that the defendants or any person other than the plaintiff have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is 22 cents and a house building thereon.

(3.) The plaintiff is admittedly the only daughter and sole legal heir of deceased Madhavan Nair. The mother of the plaintiff died in her childhood, when she was only 4 years old. Thereafter, the plaintiff was being looked after and maintained by her maternal uncle and others. Madhavan Nair died on 25.06.1995. It has come out that on 06.04.1984, Madhavan Nair had executed Ext. B3 Will, thereby bequeathing all his properties in equal shares to his sister Parukkutti Amma and defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters of Parukkutti Amma, and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the 1st defendant. Admittedly, Parukkutti Amma predeceased Madhavan Nair. After the death of Madhavan Nair, the legatees of Ext. B3 Will, except Parukkutti Amma, propounded the Will and claimed that the plaint schedule properties have devolved on them through Ext. B Plaintiff challenges the validity of Ext. B3 Will on the ground that there are several suspicious circumstances in the execution of Ext. B3 and the defendants, who are four among the legatees in the Will, are duty bound to dispel all the suspicious circumstances.