CAPT MARCUS R DARE Vs. EUNICE RANI SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff seeks probate of the Will dated 11. 9. 1990 said to have been executed by the deceased Dr. F. D. Wilson, who died on 15. 8. 1992.

(2.) PLAINTIFF's case in brief: (a) Dr. F. D. Wilson married the second defendant on 23. 4. 1947. However, their marriage life was not happy resulting in judicial separation as per the order dated 19. 4. 1950 in O. S. No. 11 of 1949, which was confirmed in appeal also. The first defendant is the daughter of Dr. F. D. Wilson, through the second defendant. Because of the judicial separation, which was confirmed, resulting in divorce, the defendants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. F. D. Wilson. However, they have filed caveats and therefore, they have been shown as defendants. (b) Dr. F. D. Wilson, while he was in a disposing state of mind, duly executed a Will at Madras on 11. 9. 1990, in the presence of two witnesses by name K. Chandrasekaran and m. R. Mani, which has been registered on 13. 9. 1990 at the office of the Sub‑registrar, alandur as Document No. 70 of 1990. Under the Will, the plaintiff, who is the nephew of the deceased is named as the sole executor and no other person has been appointed as co‑executor, either Ex Pressly or according to the tenor of the Will. Hence it is prayed, that the plaintiff may be allowed to prove the last testament of the Will of Dr. F. D. Wilson for grant of probate.

(3.) EX. P1 is the original registered Will said to have been executed by one Dr. F. D. Wilson on 11. 9. 1990, which is registered as Document no. 70 of 1990 on 13. 9. 1990. The plaintiff is the elder sister's son of Dr. F. D. Wilson. The second defendant is the wife of the testator and the first defendant is their daughter. After the marriage, within the short time, it appears, the second defendant separated herself and she was living independently receiving maintenance from her husband and at present she is no more. The first defendant is the daughter of the deceased Dr. F. D. Wilson and the second defendant, is not in dispute, though in the plaint it is stated that the second defendant is not his heir. The testator died on 15. 8. 1992. After the death, on the date of thanks‑giving ceremony on 19. 8. 1992, the Will was read over in the presence of some of the beneficiaries including the first defendant. Some of the beneficiaries appeared to have admitted the Will and said no objection about the Will as evidenced by EX P3. But the first defendant, who was present, later received some of the articles as detailed in the Will, but has not signed in the proceedings drawn by the EXecutor viz. , the plaintiff. Thus it appears the Will was disputed by the daughter of the testator, when she had the first occasion. Because of the above facts, as well as the factual position that the Will was executed at Madras and the properties set out therein are situated in Madras, originally OP was filed seeking probate and upon entrance of the LRs of the testator, as caveators, it was converted into suit.