KRISHNAKUMAR Vs. N. GOVERDHANA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, in I. A. No. 521 of 1972 in O.S. 41 of 1968, on the file of his Court holding that the revision petitioner is not the legal representative of the deceased second defendant is a sustainable order or not.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein who were arrayed as the plaintiff and first defendant in the suit are brothers and are the grandsons of the deceased second defendant through her daughter. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his one -fourth share in the A schedule property and half share in the B schedule property. It is not disputed that the first defendant is entitled to the remaining half share in the B schedule property and one -fourth share in the A schedule property. It is also the common case of parties that the second defendant was solely entitled to the remaining half share of the A schedule property in pursuance of a registered will executed by her sister Balambal on 2 -6 -1928. She was made a party to the suit inasmuch as she was in joint possession of the A schedule property along with the plaintiff and the first defendant.

(3.) ON account of the rival contentions of the parties about the legality and validity of the will, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to record detailed evidence on both parties in support of their respective contention and ultimately he held for several reasons set out by him in his order that the will on which reliance was placed to get recognition of the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant must have been brought about by either fraud or undue influence and therefore the revision petitioner cannot be recognised as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant and brought on record. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has come forward with this revision.