S V MATHA PRASAD Vs. RENUKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Thiru.S.V.Ramakrishnan (Testator) is alleged to have executed a Will dated 15.07.1970 and the first respondent before us (original plaintiff) filed a petition on 18.12.2006 for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the said Will, 26 years after the death of the Testator, who passed away on 31.12.1980. The Testator was married to one Rajalakshmi, the mother of the appellant (original second defendant), who passed away in March, 1952. There were two children born from their marriage, the appellant / second defendant and respondent no.2 / first defendant. It appears that the Testator started living with the sister of Rajalakshmi, Smt.Saroja and the Union produced three daughters and a son. Respondent no.1 is one of the daughters. The petition was opposed by appellant / second defendant and respondent no.2 / first defendant.

(2.) Respondent no.1 / plaintiff, who is staying in Mysore, entered the witness box as P.W.1 and was examined before the Additional Master-I on 26.08.2010. The counsel for the second respondent / first defendant concluded the cross-examination on 02.12.2010, whereafter the counsel for the appellant / second defendant took adjournment for cross-examination of respondent no.1 / plaintiff. It appears that thereafter there was only a saga of adjournments, though the first respondent / plaintiff appeared for cross-examination on 13.12.2010, 14.12.2010, 16.12.2010, 21.12.2010 and 05.01.2011. The matter was adjourned to 18.01.2011 by the learned Master cautioning that if cross-examination was not carried out on the next date, further testimony of other witnesses on behalf of the first respondent / plaintiff would be recorded. On 18.01.2011 also, the counsel for the appellant / second defendant is stated to have refused to cross-examine the first respondent / plaintiff, whereafter four more witnesses were examined on behalf of first respondent / plaintiff, being P.Ws.2 to 5. Their evidence was concluded on 13.06.2011 and it has been stated that the cross-examination was carried out only by the counsel for the second respondent / first defendant, while the counsel for the appellant / second defendant only adopted that cross-examination.

(3.) It appears that the cross-examination on behalf of the first respondent / plaintiff of the appellant / second defendant, who appeared in the witness box as D.W.2, was completed on 11.02.2013 and 32 documents were exhibited during that cross-examination by confronting D.W.2, who admitted those documents. However, the first respondent / plaintiff filed applications for recall of the appellant / second defendant for further cross-examination, which were contested by the appellant / second defendant. The applications were, however, allowed on 21.11.2013 by the learned Single Judge and the appeals against the same were dismissed by the Division Bench on 06.02.2014. The sequitur was that the appellant again appeared for cross-examination and was confronted with one more document, which was exhibited as P-78. The evidence of defendants, thus, stood concluded on that date.