S DEVAKI Vs. A DEENADAYALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition has been originally filed for grant of Letters of Administration based on the Will dated 22.02.2001 executed by one Mr.M. Arumugam, thereafter, converted as a suit in view of the contest by the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff is daughter of one Mr.M.Arumugam who died on 26.03.2001 at Chennai, leaving behind the Will dated 202001. All the five children of the deceased are the beneficiaries under the Will. Hence the plaintiff, being one of the beneficiaries, undertakes to administer the property and credits of the said deceased Mr.M.Arumugam by paying first his debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court.

(3.) It is the contention of the contesting defendant that the alleged Will dated 22.2.2001 is a fabricated one by playing fraud. The suit property was acquired by the father of the defendants. He died leaving behind 4 sons namely Mr.A.Deenadayalan, Mr.Ramakrishanan, Mr.A.Gnanamani and Mr.A.Venugopal (defendants herein) and one daughter by name Tmt.S.Devaki (plaintiff herein). The father has left a registered Will dated 26.10.1994 allotting different portion to each of the legal heirs. As per the above Will, all the legal heirs were enjoying the properties absolutely after mutating them in their respective names in all the public records. The plaintiff who has been living with her husband at different places, at last came to live at No.4, Jayalakshmipuram 4thStreet, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. After the death of her father, the property described in Schedule 'E' to the Will dated 26.10.1994 was allotted to her with the property of her husband having entrance from Jayalakshmipuram 4th Street, Chennai-34. The plaintiff has not been given any of usage over the pathway existing in Old Door No.4, New Door No.7, ChokkattanSalai, Chennai-34, which exclusively meant for the 4th defendant. In the alleged Will dated 22.2.2011 thumb impression has been affixed purporting to be that of Arumugha Naicker. There is no reason assigned in the petition why the thumb impression was affixed. It is the further contention of the defendants that from March 2000 the testator was mentally unsound due to old age and was suffering from senility and lost mobility totally. Hence, he could not have written the alleged Will dated 22.02.2001. The said Will got registered, by playing fraud in order to claim right over the above said exclusive pathway of the defendant.