LAKSHMI Vs. PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. THE plaint averments briefly stated is as follows:

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement states as follows:

(3.) THE plaintiff and the defendant are sister and brother respectively and they are the children of deceased Chinnammal. THE suit property was purchased by Chinnammal out of her own funds and it is her personal property as alleged in the suit. According to the plaintiff, their mother was not keeping good health from about of 6 months prior to her death and she was not maintaining the mental capacity to know good and bad, right and wrong and she was actually bedridden prior to her death. According to the palintiff, the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession and therefore she gave a police complaint and when the police made an enquiry the defendant had informed them that their mother had executed a registered Will in his favour and it is only then she came to know of the Will said to have been executed by her mother and in her opinion it is not true and valid. THE plaintiff has admitted that the thumb impression in the Will under Ex.P-1 should have been obtained by her brother, the defendant, taking advantage of her mother's ill-health and bedridden condition and therefore, she is ignoring the Will and praying partition in the suit property owned by her mother: THE defendant has resisted the suit by contending that their mother had an aversion against the plaintiff on account of her drinking habits with her husband and on account of the fact that they have lost the properties owned by them and on account of the fact that they have come for shelter with Chinnammal in the same house in another portion and therefore, his mother had executed the Will in his favour out of love and affection she had towards him only. THE daughter was already married and she has come and resided in the same house where Chinnammal was residing is not in dispute. THE Will is said to have been executed on 18.9.1981 and Chinnammal died on 22.9.1981 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would therefore argue that somebody should have fabricated the thumb impression of the sickly lady who was in bed and the defendant had taken active part in the execution as well as the registration of the document as a propounder and beneficiary and this is a very strong suspicious circumstance therein to doubt the genuineness of the Will, Ex.B-8.