AMMU Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether Ext. A1, the will produced in the case, has been sufficiently proved to be duly executed.

(2.) The facts we only state in the very smallest compass. The suit is for redemption of 2 mortgages executed on 11-6-1937 and 13-9-1938 by one Devarajan in favour of his first wife, the 1st defendant. The 8th defendant is his second wife. The 9th defendant is their son. The 7th defendant is the father of the 8th defendant. On 29-4-1949 Devarajan executed a will bequeathing all his assets in favour of defendants 7 to 9. By the later will, Ext. A1, he cancelled the earlier will and bequeathed his assets to the plaintiff, who is his brother, and defendants 8 and 9. It was on the strength of Ext. A1 that the suit for redemption was filed after Devarajan's death. The 1st defendant contended that Ext. A1 was vitiated by fraud and that it was invalid According to defendants 7 to 9 also Ext. A1 was invalid. They said that as Ext. A1 was invalid the earlier will dated 29-4-1949 took effect after Devarajan's death.

(3.) The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the Munsiff, Ponnani before whom it was filed. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam. In the Second Appeal filed before the court our learned brother, Raghavan J, confirmed the decisions of the lower courts Our learned brother also granted leave to the 1st defendant to appeal. That is how the matter has now come up before us.