K A ALICE Vs. K A MARY (DECEASED); K A JOSEPH; K A THOMAS; K V THANDAMMA (DECEASED); P V CHARLES; DEEPU CHARLES; DAVID CHARLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Testamentary Original Suit is filed for issuance of Letters of Administration of the will dated 24.02.1997 which is annexed to the petition. The will was executed on 24.02.1997 by one K.V.Anthony. The testator died on 12.05.2000 leaving behind his wife, two daughters and three sons as his legal heirs. One of the daughters is the plaintiff. Though originally Original Petition was filed in view of the caveat filed by the first defendant, it was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit.

(2.) The first defendant, who is the another daughter has filed written statement opposing the issuance of Letters of Administration. According to the first defendant, who is the sister of the plaintiff, there were so many mysterious and suspicious circumstances in the execution, registration and production of the will dated 24.02.1997. It was further stated that the will is not a true, valid and genuine document and it was fabricated as an after thought with an ulterior motive and malafide intention to snatch away the assets of the deceased. It is contended further that the father of the plaintiff and first defendant did not voluntarily executed the will and the same was obtained by exercising undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation. The deceased father of the first defendant, according to her, was not under sound state of mind, when the alleged will was executed. It is stated that already a civil suit was pending between the parties in O.S.No.1715 of 2001 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai between the plaintiff and other defendants. The said suit was filed against the father K.V.Anthony, which was dismissed and confirmed in A.S.No.146 of 1998. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff has suppressed the said fact which also would dis-entitle her from getting a letters of administration. In view of the alleged suspicious circumstances in the execution of the will, it was prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the additional written statement filed by the first defendant, it is stated that the will was obtained by the plaintiff secretly and surreptitiously in a suspicious manner fearing that if it is known to the family members, they would prevent the execution of the will in favour of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the second defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, also disputed the execution of the will. He has further contended that the testator has executed the will even discarding the mother of the plaintiff, that is the wife of the testator. Therefore, alleging fraud and foul play, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.