RUKMANI Vs. RENGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below.

(2.) Appellant filed the suit for declaration that the Will dtd. 1/7/2014 executed by Kuppusamy Naidu is not true, valid and unenforceable; (2) to divide the suit properties into 16 equal shares and allot 5 such shares to her; (3) for injunction restraining the second defendant from selling or alienating the suit properties; (4) and for costs.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that the first respondent is her mother, second respondent is her brother, fifth respondent is her sister, third and fourth respondents are the children of second respondent. She filed the suit against the respondents claiming that the suit items 1 to 6 are ancestral properties, items 7 and 8 were purchased by their father Kuppusamy Naidu from the income derived from items 1 to 6 of the suit properties. Thereafter, their father died on 2/7/2014 leaving her, mother, brother and sisters as his legal heirs. Suit properties were enjoyed by appellant, mother and respondents 2 to 5 as joint family properties. Both the kidneys of Kuppusamy Naidu became dysfunctional and he was bedridden. He died on 2/7/2014. Before his death a Will was said to have been executed by Kuppusamy Naidu in favour of the second respondent on 1/7/2014 at Velakoundapatti Sub-Registrar Office. This Will was not executed by Kuppusamy Naidu when he was in sound disposing state of mind. It was created by the second respondent to deny share in the suit properties to appellant and fifth respondent. Assuming that the Will is true, Kuppusamy Naidu can execute a Will only in respect of his 1/4 share in the suit properties. He has no right to execute the will in respect of all the suit properties. When the appellant demanded the respondents to divide the suit properties and allot her share, the second respondent refused. Therefore, this suit.