V THANIKACHALAM Vs. J RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal left some immovable property in the city of Madras. She lastly executed the Will dated 12.6.1989 for the petitioner's life and thereafter to be taken by his five sons viz., T.Rajendran, T.Ramesh, T.Kumar, T.Selvam and T.Loganathan absolutely in equal shares. THE deceased did not appoint any executor under the Will and the plaintiff is the legatee under the Will. THE testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal died on 23.3.1990. THE amount of assets which is likely to come to the plaintiff's hands does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.65,000 and the net amount of the said assets, after deducting all items which the plaintiff is by law allowed to deduct is only of the value of Rs.60,000. THE plaintiff undertakes duly to administer the property and credits of Radha Rukmini Ammal in any way concerning her Will by paying first her debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of grant of letters administration with the Will annexed to the plaintiff and also to render to this Court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. THE deceased left her brother's son J.Radhakrishnan surviving her as her next of kin according to Hindu Law. THE plaintiff has not made any application to any other High Court or District Court for probate of the Will. THE plaintiff prays for letters of administration as the legatee of the deceased.

(2.) THE defendant filed written statement contending as follows: THE Will is not a genuine one and it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. THE suit property originally belonged to the defendant's father Janakiram Mudaliar. It was purchased benami in the name of defendant's mother Thirupurasundari Ammal. THE defendant is the only son to his parents. THE defendant's father Janakiram Mudaliar had one brother by name Balakrishnan and one sister Radha Rukmini Ammal. THE said Balakrishnan lived as a bachelor and passed away. Radha Rukmini Ammal also became a widow and she was issuless. In order to provide safety and security for her future life maintenance, the defendant's father executed a sale deed through his wife Thirupurasundari Ammal in favour of the defendant's aunt Radha Rukmini Ammal. It was the intention of the defendant's father and Radha Rukmini Ammal that ultimately the property will come over to the defendant after the demise of Radha Rukmini Ammal. Radha Rukmini Ammal was living in a portion in the suit property and she let out the other portion and was collecting and realising rents from the tenants. THE plaintiff became a tenant under Radha Rukmini Ammal on a monthly rent of Rs.200. After the death of Radha Rukmini Ammal, as the sole legal representative, the defendant became entitled to inherit the property. Only the defendant was attending to the needs of Radha Rukmini Ammal. Radha Rukmini Ammal wanted the defendant to go and live along with her after vacating the tenants including the plaintiff and she also directed the defendant to collect rents and evict the tenants on her behalf. THE plaintiff has filed the suit to grab at the property. THE plaintiff, in active collusion and connivance, conspired with his sons and other members of his family and forged a Will. THE plaintiff along with their friends prepared a false and bogus Will and registered it on 29.5.1989. THE Will is not a genuine one. THE plaintiff is not the legal heir of Radha Rukmini Ammal. THE testatrix was very sick to understand or act under her own volition and she was not conscious and she was bedridden. THE testatrix was not normal and the Will dated 12.6.1989 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. THE plaintiff is acting prejudicial to the interest of the testatrix. THE suit has to be dismissed.

(3.) P.W.1 says that the attestors who attested the earlier Will Ex.P-3 have attested the last Will Ex.P-1 also and both the attestors are close friends of his family and only her mother Radha Rukmini Ammal executed the Will Ex.P-1 duly attested by the witnesses and it is a true and valid Will. The plaintiff filed prior documents Exs.P-4 to P-6 and states that the testatrix gave the original title deeds in respect of the suit property to him. He also filed Exs.P-7 to P-10 pro-notes and states that the testatrix was having money transactions and she only entrusted those documents to him. The plaintiff's original mother was Kannammal. The deceased testatrix is his adoptive mother. P.W.1 states that the deceased joined his father in 1945 and she was treated as his mother and she has no children through her first husband. The plaintiff relies on Exs.P-11 to P-14 letter correspondence between the deceased and his father and also Ex.P-15 pro-note executed by Balakrishnan Mudaliar in favour of the testatrix wherein the testatrix has described herself as the wife of the plaintiff's father and the said Balakrishna Mudaliar is only the brother of the plaintiff's father. Relying upon these documents, the defendant contends that the testatrix is his adoptive mother and he is her adopted son.