K JAGANMOHAN Vs. D RUCKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed the petition in O.P.No.300 of 2002 for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will, dated 19.5.1997, executed by the testator Mr.T.V.Kabali. At the instance of both the respondents, this Court by Order dated 29.7.2002, converted the original petition into Testamentary Original Suit.

(2.) THE first defendant is the widow of the Testator T.V.Kabali and the plaintiff is their son and the second defendant is their daughter. According to the plaintiff, his father T.V.Kabali was in Government service and he was allotted Plot No.C.458, Door No.31, 46th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 in T.S.No.59 of Block No.57 (Part) of Kodambakkam Pudur Village measuring about 1 ground and 635 sq. ft. by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dated 12.6.1990 and it is his self-acquired property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that T.V.Kabali bequeathed that property in favour of the plaintiff absolutely by Will, dated 19.5.1997 and declared the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary and the legatee of the Will and no executor was appointed in the Will. THE plaintiff also undertakes to duly administer the property and make a full and true inventory within six months from the date of grant of Letters of Administration and also render a true account of the property and credits to the Court within one year from the said date.

(3.) EX.P.1 is the original registered Will, dated 19.5.1997, executed by the Testator T.V.Kabali bequeathing his house property bearing Door No.31, 46th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 in favour of his only son, viz., the plaintiff herein. The first defendant is the wife of the testator and the second defendant is their only daughter and in their common written statement, they have admitted that T.V.Kabali executed the Will, dated 19.5.1997, but stated that the Will was not intended to give any testamentary operation and it is a sham document, executed as collateral security for the money to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs advanced by the plaintiff to the father for construction of new block in the property bequeathed. The further case of the defendants is that the Will is unnatural for three reasons, firstly, the testator T.V.Kabali was in good health on the date of execution of the Will and there was no necessity for him to execute the Will except the fact that he had borrowed some money from the plaintiff, who was abroad, for construction of new block in the property and secondly, the relationship between the testator and his wife viz., the first defendant was very cordial, as evident from the recitals in the Will and he has not left any legacy to her in the Will and there was no reason to exclude her in the grant and thirdly, the second defendant is the only daughter, who was living with the parents and taking care of them and she has one son and daughter and it is unthinkable that the testator would give his entire property to his son, who has no issues and also well-settled in U.S.A., excluding the daughter.