R RAMACHANDRAN Vs. R GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant who has failed in the Courts below is challenging the decree granted in favour of the respondent herein in this appeal. THE short facts are, the suit property belonged to one Nachiar Ammal who was the aunt of the appellant as well as the respondent. THEy are related to her as her brother's sons. She executed a will on 23.11.1951 marked as Ex. B1 bequeathing her property to the plaintiff. In the will, it is stated expressly that even during her husband's lifetime, the plaintiff was br ought up from his childhood as ?Abhimanaputra? (foster son). THEre is no dispute about the genuineness of the said will. That will was revoked by Nachiar Ammal by a deed dated 27.3.1962. In the revocation deed, no reason is given for cancelling the will. It merely records that the will is cancelled.

(2.) NACHIAR Ammal executed another will on 21.4.1973 which was registered on 24.4.1973. In the will, the following recital is the relevant one for the purpose of this case: Tamil As per the said recital, the property is given to Ramachandran who was accepted as foster son even during the lifetime of the Husband of the lady. She died on 28.6.1973, i.e., about two months after the will.

(3.) IN this second appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below are in error in overlooking the circumstances that the property was bequeathed under the will to the appellant as persona desigiiata . According to learned counsel, there is clear indication in the will that the appellant is the beneficiary as his name is mentioned in four places in the will. Learned counsel also invites my attention to the evidence given by D.W. 1, the attestor to the will and places strong reliance on the version of D.W. 1 that Nachiar Ammal identified the appellant herein as the legatee before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the will. Learned counsel also refers to certain authorities in support of his claim.