IN RE: V. ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is for revocation and annulment of the grant of Probate in favour of the petitioner in O.P. No. 625 of 2000 with respect to the property more fully set out in the application and with respect to the Will "fraudulently obtained and made up by the respondent" till the veracity and genuineness is on the following allegations:

(2.) A counter has been filed by the respondent denying the various allegations in the affidavit in support of the application and has further stated as follows:

(3.) A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants by the fourth applicant reiterating the contents of the main affidavit. The further fact set out is that he beneficiary under the alleged will, viz, Santha Bai died long back on 10.11.1995 leaving behind no issue. The respondent even without disclosing about the death of the beneficiary and without even telling that she had not left any issue, fraudulently by abusing the process of Court, had obtained Probate behind the applicants back. At the time of Vasudevan's death it was raining. The first applicant was feeling giddy and after closing the doors, all the applicants went to the tea shop to have tea. At that time, the respondent locked the house Immediately the applicants rushed to the Police Station and gave a complaint about the illegal locking of the house. The police officials accompanied them, broke the lock of the house and gave back possession to the applicants They went inside the house and saw that the house had been ransacked The respondent took away the box and all the belongings of Vasudevan and all the documents and filed them in this Court as typed set. In the criminal complaint, the applicants had mentioned about the theft of documents by the respondent. The first applicant became sick in the year 1958. She took a vow that she would get converted to Christianity if she became alright. After she became alright, she embraced Christianity. The trouble arose and Vasudevan deserted the first applicant and thereafter they were living separately. Vasudevan used to beat the first applicant and that too in the school itself at Perambur Barracks Corporation School. The respondent cannot take up the plea that the applicants are Christians and therefore they are not entitled to the properties of Vasudevan. The documents filed along with the typed set are all genuine documents issued by competent authorities long back. During the period the applicants resided in the subject property, the respondent used to frequent their house only as a friend. The applicants never dreamt that the respondent, a close friend, would go to the extent of obtaining a probate on a fraudulent and forged Will and that too after the passing away of the only beneficiary, who had no issue. In 1994, the respondent demanded money from the applicants stating that he had spent money for the medical expenses of Vasudevan. Though there was no evidence of his spending, still the applicants agreed to give the medical expenses in the presence of local Headman, but all of a sudden, the respondent changed his mind and after three months issued a notice through his lawyer. As late as 2.12.2001 the respondent and other people came to the applicants' house and demanded money and threatened that if they did not give the money, the house would not go to anybody. In these circumstances, the order granting Probate has to be revoked.