P. SOMASUNDARAM Vs. K. RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred in forma pauperis by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 187 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The said suit was filed by him in forma pauperis for possession with past and future mesne profits.

(2.) THIS litigation arose out of a will executed by one Velammal under Ex. B -34 dated 23 -2 -1949 in favour of the respondent -defendant. The plaintiff in the suit questions the right and title of the testatrix to the suit properties. The relationship of the parties and their position can be appreciated from the following genealogical tree - The suit properties originally belonged to one Seeni Chettiar, son of Diraviyam Chettiar. The said Seeni Chettiar had two brothers, viz., Arunachalam Chettiar (the eldest) and Annamalai Chettiar (the youngest). Annamalai Chettiar died issueless. Arunachalam Chettiar died leaving his two sons Palvannan Chettiar Subramaniam Chettiar. Subramaniam Chettiar also died issueless. The plaintiff in this suit is the son of the said Palvannana Chettiar. The said Seeni Chettir, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a will Ex. A -1 dated 27 -4 -1913, bequeathing life interests in favour of his wife, Peramu Ammal and daughter -in -law Chellammal with a specific term that his daughter -in -law Chellammal and his grand -daughter, Velammal were also to reside with his wife Peramu Ammal and maintain themselves out of the income from the properties in common, with no powers of alienation. Velammal was to enjoy the properties in common with Peramu Ammal and Chellammal till their lifetime and thereafter Velammal and her heirs were to get the properties absolutely. There is no dispute on the above said facts. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the will Ex A -1, Velammal got only a right of maintenance during the lifetime of Peramu Ammal and Chellammal and not any vested interest or remainder in the properties. After the death of the testator of Ex. A -1, Peramu Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as per the terms of the will and Chellammal and Velammal also were maintained by Peramu Ammal out of the income of the bequeathed properties. Velammal the testatrix of Ex. A -34, died issueless on 22 -2 -1951, after the death of her husband. Subsequently, Peramu Ammal died on 11 -2 -1951 (sic) and Chellammal died on 20 -7 -1955. So, the plaintiff's case is that Velammal, the testatrix of Ex. B - 34, had absolutely no vested interest, right or title to the property especially during the lifetime of Peramu Ammal and Chellammal, and so the alleged will is void ab initio. The plaintiff's further case is that Ex. B -34 has not been executed while in a sound and disposing state of mind and that the defendant, the legatee under the will, with the able assistance and help of her husband, partisans and friends, had exerted undue influence and coercion on the testatrix, to execute the will and so it is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and coercion. Thus the plaintiff claims that as per Ex A -1, he has become entitled to succeed to the suit properties and to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. He challenges the occupation and possession of the suit properties, by the defendants as illegal. He sent a notice under Ex. A -5 dated 4 -7 -1964, to which the defendants sent a reply under Ex. B -32, dated 11 -7 -1964. So, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to the suit properties and consequently to recover possession thereafter from the defendant and for past mesne profits of Rs. 3,600 and future mesne profits and costs of suit.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court -