V NEELAKANDAN ALIAS NARAYANAN Vs. N KAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition was originally filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 seeking probate of the Will executed by K. Vaidyanathan. On caveat being filed by the respondent, the Original Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit. The plaintiff Neelakandan is none other than the brother of N. Kaveri, the defendant herein.

(2.) The plaintiff would contend that his father K. Vaidyanathan, who left behind the plaintiff and the defendant as the only legal heirs, died on 1.11.1996 after executing the Will dated 7.7.1995 bequeathing the schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was kept in a sealed cover and the same was registered as document No. 4 of 1995 in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar I, Saidapet. The Will was opened in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant's husband Sri. Nagarajan by the Joint Sub Registrar I, Saidapet on an application moved by the plaintiff. The deceased K. Vaidyanathan appointed the plaintiff as his executor. Having undertaken to duly administer the property and credits of the deceased K. Vaidyanathan, the plaintiff sought for grant of probate.

(3.) The defendant would contend that the alleged Will is a false and fictitious one. The Will does not reflect the freewill and desire, of the deceased K. Vaidyanathan. K. Vaidyanathan and his wife had immense love for both the plaintiff and the defendant. In fact, Vaidyanathan had special affection for the defendant. Vaidyanathan wanted to provide the property both for the son and the daughter. Vaidyanathan and his wife had discussion about the equal distribution of the properties in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. Vaidyanthan was emotionally attached to his wife Seethalakshmi. Her death was a great tragedy and a deep shock to the defendant's father. Before her death, she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer for about four years. The sudden death of Seethalakshmi affected the mental capacity of the father of the defendant. He was traumatic, inconsolable and uncohesive on account of the impact of the death of his wife. It was in such a mental sate of utter confusion, despondency and despair, the alleged Will is said to have been executed. The defendant strongly suspects that taking advantage of his mental weakness and confusion, the plaintiff had brought undue influence upon his father. Some inherent contradictions are found in the alleged Will. It is quite unnatural to deprive the share of the defendant. After all the defendant did not incur any debt for the marriage of the defendant. The plaintiff started working as casual worker earning a meager income eight years after the marriage of the defendant. The plaintiff was instrumental in coercing and influencing the defendant's father for writing a testamentary document against his freewill and contrary to the truth. The defendant's father was completely bedridden prior to his death and was repeatedly admitted to hospitals. There was no improvement in his condition. There is every possibility that the signature in blank paper would have been misused and misutilized for the purpose of bringing a document before the court. Therefore, there is no merit in the suit for the grant of probate.