J. RAPEETA EARNEST MARY Vs. A. JESUDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed to revoke the letters of administration granted by this Court by an Order dated 09.10.2001 in respect of the Will dated 25.12.1993.

(2.) The brief facts of the applicant case is as follows : One M.S.Arulanandam is the grand father of the applicant. The said Arulanandam had 7 sons and two daughters he was residing with the children in Door No.72 , Triplicane High Road, Chennai. The applicants' father late Joseph was the fourth child of the said Arulanandam. The applicants' father during his life time has started Das Colour Lab in the year 1975 and he has extended his business and out of the income generated from his business several properties have been purchased not only in the name of the applicants' grand father and grand mother but also for the benefit of the family. Certain properties have also been purchased in the name of the second respondent because of fiduciary relationship and for the benefit of the family, since the applicants' father was busy during the days of the booming photography business and was travelling from Chennai to other cities like Coimbatore, Madurai and Vijayawada etc. The applicants' grand father died on 05.1.1994 and the applicants' father also died in the year 1999 leaving behind the legal heirs, viz., his wife and the applicants and their brothers and sisters and their siblings. The mother of the applicants was also looking after the family and the entire family business was managed by Michael Jesudass, uncle of the applicants. In fact the applicants' uncle was in dominant position and when the applicants were in school, they used to take signature in the 'x' marked places in several papers. Dispute arose when there was threat to dispose of the applicants from the suit properties. Therefore a suit in O.S.No.218 of 2015 came to be filed in the City Civil Court. Only when they filed the suit in the year 2014, they came to know that a Will has been forged and probated by using the signature of the applicants. It is the contention of the applicants that the Will of the grand father Arulanandam was created and fabricated and the applicants and their siblings were made to sign in anti dated documents and the signature of the applicants have been forged in the consent affidavits. Hence, it is his contention that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making false allegations and suppressing material facts. Hence, seeks to revoke the letters of administration granted in favour of the second respondent.

(3.) Denying the entire allegations, it is the contention of the first respondent in the counter that the properties have been purchased by his individual earnings. In fact he has helped his brother for running his business. After the marriage of the applicants' father, he started to live separately with his wife and children and at no point of time they have lived together with cordial relationship with his father and mother. It is his contention that their father had died on 05.01.94 and the applicants father died on 09.03.1999. The allegation that the consent affidavit has been forged and signature of the applicants have been obtained by undue influence is denied. It is the contention that the second respondent and seventh respondents were controlling the properties are totally false and misleading. The applicants having filed a suit for injunction in the year 2015 and a suit for partition in the year 2016, had chosen to file the present application only in the year 2019 and the same is barred by limitation.