(1.) BY the impugned order in Application No. 3671 of 1991 dated 5.1.1993 a learned single judge of this court has revoked the probate of the will of one P.P.M. Dhanushkodi Nadar (deceased who died on 23.12.1983), in favour of the appellant herein at the instance of his three brothers and a sister.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the deceased Dhanushkkodi Nadar is the uncle of the appellant as well as the applicants-respondents, who died issueless, his close heir being the father of the appellant and the respondents. According to the appellant, Dhanushkodi Nadar left behind a will appointing him as his executor. He accordingly filed a petition along with the affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses, to probate the Will in the common form. On 22.11.1985 a learned single Judge of this Court recorded a s follows:?
(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, Dhanushkodi Nadar had not executed any Will and in any event he was not in a sound disposing state of mind at least for two weeks prior to his death. The Will, according to them, was created to deprive them of their share in the properties of the deceased Dhanushkodi Nidar. Their further case is that on a perusal of the documents filed in the proceeding in this Court, they had learnt that the appellant had projected a forged Will and suppressing the material facts manoevured to obtain probate on the basis of the said concocted document. They never got any notice; nor any notice was ever given to them of the probate proceedings. They had no knowledge of the proceedings and grant of probate, until they came to know about it for the first time through the reply notice dated 10.5.1991. ACCORDING to them, the grant of probate had affected their right in the estate of Dhanushkodi Nadar, who had died intestate since his estate had devolved on his only surviving legal heir, his brother Rathina Nadar, that is to say, the father of the appellant and the respondents. They are entitled to succeed along with the appellant and their mother with equal rights and shares.