G CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. D RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs herein originally filed the petition under Sections 232, 255 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking issuance of letters of administration. As respondents 1 to 4 filed caveat, the petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs have contended that S. Srinivasan executed his last Will and Testament on 10.1.1994 and registered the same in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar. No one was appointed as executor under the said Will. The Testator died on 23.1.1994 at No. 30, Vellala Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai. The parents of the deceased Srinivasan predeceased him. His only wife also departed him immediately after the marriage. Therefore, the deceased Srinivasan had no issues till his death. The wife of the deceased by name S. Thulasi Bai died subsequently on 27.7.2004. One of the attesting witnesses S. Ganesan also died on 27.4.1999 itself. Inspite of diligent efforts, the plaintiffs could not locate the other attesting witness to the Will. The plaintiffs are the Testator's first and second brother's grand sons. The defendants are none other than the grandsons of the second brother of the Testator. The defendant also have been provided with properties under the Will. Thus, they are also beneficiaries under the Will. The plaintiffs were not aware of the position of law that they should obtain letters of administration. They came to know of the legal position only when the Nationalised Bank and Housing Society, whom they approached to raise housing loan in order to develop the vacant site, informed them of the necessity to obtain letters of administration. Therefore, the delay has occasioned in filing the petition. The plaintiffs pray that letters of administration may be issued to them.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 have contended that Srinivasan did not die on 23.1.1994 at door No. 30, Vellala Street, Aminijikarai, Chennai. He died in a private hospital at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30. The Will was prepared at the instigation of S. Ganesan without knowledge and consent of the deceased who was actually not in a sound state of mind. The said Srinivasan was actually under coma. It is not true to say that the wife of the deceased deserted him immediately after the marriage. Thulasi Bai, the wife of the Testator took care of him in the hospital during the period of his illness. If the Will was genuinely prepared and executed, it would have been brought to the notice of the concerned persons immediately after the death of Srinivasan. The Will was obtained under duress and coercion without explaining to the Testator about the consequence of the Will. The delay of eleven years in seeking the letters of administration is nothing but wilful and wanton. Therefore, the defendants pray that the suit may be dismissed.