BABY ALIAS DHANALAKSHMI Vs. L. KRIPAKARAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed Original Petition No. 459 of 1986 for grant of Letters of Administration of the will dated 26-3-1978 said to have been executed by her mother Chengammal, who died at Madras on 28-11-1981. The said petition was converted into a suit because of contest by the respondent and it was numbered as T.O.S. No. 32 of 1987. After trial, the suit was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court and this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) The deceased Chengammal left the Appellant and another daughter by name Yasodha and two sons by name Seetharaman arid Krupakaran. Seetharaman was the first defendant in the suit. He died during the pendency of the suit. His wife and daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives as defendants 3 and 4. They are respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal. The other son was the second defendant in the suit and the first respondent in this appeal. Under the will, the property situated in No. 10, Somasundaram Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17, is bequeathed to the appellant and her sister Yasodha. In the written statement filed by the defendants it is contended that the Will could not be a genuine one and perhaps a forged one. It is also averred that the witnesses to the will are relatives and friends of the husband of the appellant herein and they could not have been present when the appeal was alleged to have been signed by the mother of the appellant. It is also stated that the non-registration of the Will is a strong circumstance to indicate that Will is not genuine. According to the defendants, after the marriage of the appellant, their mother was made to stay with the appellant and she was not allowed to see the defendants. Only after the death of the mother, the dead body was brought by the defendants to their house. When in Jan. 1978 the defendants wanted to see their mother, they were informed that she was affected by paralytic stroke and the plaintiff refused to send the mother with the defendants for treatment. In short the contention of the defendants is that the will is not genuine.

(3.) The learned Judge held that there were sufficient suspicious circumstances which were not explained by the appellant, who propounded the Will. He also found that the witnessses examined in the case are all interested and unsatisfactory and the evidence adduced by them is not sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of mind of the testatrix and her signature as required by law. The learned Judge has also found that the propounder had taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will and had not explained the suspicious circumstances. Consequently, he dismissed the suit.