A R KAVERI Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is filed for declaration and other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff is owning properties in India and Malaysia and some properties are acquired by the plaintiff by way of bequeath made by her sister C.T. Alagammai Achi under Will dated 25.1.1982 probate being granted by the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur. The first defendant is in no way connected with the plaintiff or his family in Petition No. S5-45-241 of 1987. Since the first defendant interfere with Damansara land situated at Malaysia, the plaintiff filed a suit in CS. No. S-22-907-2010 before the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur. In the said suit, the first defendant filed his affidavit and counter claim stating that CT. Alagammai Achi executed a will on 9.7.2002 and the first defendant has got probate issued in his favour by High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur in petition No. S-32-466-2010 by using the same names as the original owners of the property. While the first defendant has got probate granted in his favour by relying on an alleged Will dated 9.7.2001 and also relied on five documents viz., (i) birth certificate dated 9.7.1959 bearing B&D No. 108/59 and registration No. 450 (ii) death certificate dated 22.4.2002 bearing B&D No. 1806 of 1978 and Registration No. 24 (iii) Will dated 9.7.2002 in Document No. 109 of 2002 (iv) death certificate dated 22.12.2002 bearing B&D No. 1760 of 2002 and Registration No. 36 and (v) legal heirs certificate dated 9.1.2003 under Sl. No. 3969 of 2003 as if all the above said documents were issued by the statutory authorities viz., D2 to D4. The plaintiff sent an application on 30.9.2010 to the office concerned i.e. D2 to D4. Whereas, the defendants 2 to 4 replied that the above said documents were not issued by them. Therefore, the above said five documents relied on by the first defendant are forged and fabricated documents and hence the plaintiff filed this suit before this Court for the reliefs stated supra.

(2.) Even though, necessary summons were duly served on all the four defendants, first defendant appeared through counsel but written statement not filed, the defendants 2 to 4 have not appeared either in person or through any counsel. Hence, this Court ordered defendants 2 to 4 set ex parte Even though, the suit was listed under the caption "undefended board" causes, the first defendant has not filed any application to condone the delay to receive the written statement. Therefore, this Court referred the suit before the Additional Master-IV for recording evidence of plaintiff side. Before the Additional Master-IV also, the first defendant has not cross examined the plaintiff side witness. After recording the evidence of plaintiff side, the Additional Master-IV returned the case bundle to this Court for arguments along with oral and documentary evidence recorded on the side of the plaintiff.

(3.) At the time of arguments also learned counsel for first defendant not appeared. Therefore, heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of plaintiff.