DEVAKI Vs. VASANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by Smt. Latha Mageswari and Selvi Amutha for impleading themselves as defendants 2 and 3 in the above T.O.S. The T.O.S. itself is for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 27-4-1983 alleged to have been executed by one Kanniappa Naiker.

(2.) IT is alleged in the affidavit that the applicants are daughters of late Devaraj, through his second wife, who is the sole defendant in the present T.O.S., that they are the grand daughters of late Kanniappa Naicker, born to his adopted son Devaraj, that Kanniappa Naicker executed a registered settlement deed on 6-4-1960 and that as per the terms of the settlement deed, he had given a life interest to his wife Pattammal and vested right, title and interest to the male and female issue of Devaraj, that Kanniappa Naicker died in the year 1984 and Pattammal in the year 1989, that as per the terms of the settlement deed, the applicants herein would be entitled to 2/3rd share in the household properties and the remaining 1/3rd share would vest in Purushothaman, the husband of the plaintiff in the present suit. IT is further alleged that they came to know about the proceedings only recently and that Kanniappa Naicker having executed a settlement deed, had no authority or power to revoke the same and that the Will therefore is not true or valid. IT is contended that since they have a caveatable interest, the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as party defendants in the present suit.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that in testamentary suits what is to be investigated is the disposing state of mind of the testator or testatrix and the disposition of his or her properties by Will. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision N. Narasimham v. N. Sitharamaiyer In the matter of the Last Will and Codicil of Smt. N. Venkataramanan (1975-1-M.L.J. 379=88 L.W. 253). The Bench has indeed laid down the preposition that.