LALITHAMMAL Vs. T MOHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 150 of 1994 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Salem. The defendant, who has lost her defence before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: the defendant Lalithammal is the second wife of late Dr. K. Govindarajulu, whose youngest sister's third son is the plaintiff. The plaintiff was very much attachehd to the said Dr. K. Govindarajulu and was very helpful to him more like his son. The defendant had no issues male or female. She was very quarrelsome and showed scant respect to her husband during his life time. Dr. K. Govindarajulu had inherited properties from his father and he also acquired properties in his name from his self earnings in his profession. Dr. K. Govindarajulu died on 19. 12. 1976 and his obsequies were performed by the plaintiff. Dr. K. Govindarajulu had executed a Will dated 18. 2. 1972 and deposited with the Registrar of Assurances, Salem. In the said Will, the testator had given life estate to his second wife ,the defendant herein over all the properties.

(3.) THE defenant in her written statement would contend that during the life time of her husband, the plaintiff's mother wanted to interfere with them and always she was instrumental for the quarrel with her husband. Only due to her inducement and during the unsound mind of her brother, she got the alleged Will executed for her group's favour without the knowledge and consent of the defendant while he was of unsound mind. The husband of the defendant had lost the mental balance previously on two occasions and had treatment both at Madras and Bangalore. Subsequently, he celebrated his Sashtiyapthapoorthi on 22. 3. 1971. After few months, he was not keeping good mental stability. The plaintiff's mother who is the sister of the deceased Dr. K. Govindarajulu used to come often and met him. The brother of the plaintiff viz. , Jagadeesan, used to supply liquors to Dr. K. Govindarajulu. It seems that the plaintiff and his mother and brother had managed to get some document ie. , Will from him when he was not in a sound disposing state of mind. Dr. K. Govindarajulu acquired properties in his name from his self earnings in his profession is wrong. The husband of the defendant inherited only his residential house at 57, Kurumbar Street,salem -1. Other properties were purchased from the funds of the defendant but sale deed and mortgage deed were taken on her husband's name as he was the male member of the family.