SIVABALAN Vs. MEENAMMAL MARIYAMMAL (DIED) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 575 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The first respondent in this petition filed the suit in O.S. No. 575 of 2012 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham, for a declaration that the unregistered Will fabricated by forging the signature of the plaintiff's father, one, Mariapillai, dated 26.05.1996 is invalid and for mandatory injunction to direct the revenue officials to invalidate the mutation of revenue records in relation to patta No. 1614 on the basis of the said Will and for other reliefs. The averments in the plaint are as follows: 2. 1. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is her mother. The plaintiff's father acquired the suit properties from out of the income of the joint family properties. The father of the plaintiff and first defendant died on 03.06.1995 and the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 divided the movable properties equally among themselves. However, the first defendant made the plaintiff and the second defendant to believe that his father had executed an unregistered Will, dated 26.05.1993 and further made her to accept the said Will as true. The first defendant, however, did not show the Will, but was also managing the property described as 'C' schedule, which was shown as a property allotted to her under the Will and therefore, the plaintiff had no occasion to know about the truth and genuineness of the Will. 2. 2. The plaintiff visited her mother during November-2009 and was informed by her that the Will had been forged by the first defendant by putting the signature of the plaintiff's father and it was only thereafter, she came to know that the Will does contain the signature of the plaintiff's father, Late. Sri. Mariapillai. The plaintiff's father was a stamp vendor and utilising the unsold and unfilled stamp papers and the Will was fabricated by forging the signature of Late. Sri. Mariapillai. It is only on the basis of the forged Will, the first defendant has mutated the revenue records in his favour in respect of the property in S.Nos. 233 and 252. Since the fraudulent act came to the knowledge of plaintiff only recently, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the revision petitioner on many grounds. It was the case of first defendant that his father Late. Sri. Mariapillai executed a Will in his handwriting. The averments in the plaint are specifically denied by the first defendant. It is also the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff was given in marriage in the year 1979, by spending huge money apart from giving 15 sovereigns of gold as "Sridhana". It is the further case of the first defendant that the the plaintiff has denied the execution of the Will only for the purpose of the case and that his father executed the Will in a sound disposing state of mind. It is also stated by the first defendant that the Will was acted upon as the plaintiff and defendants took the properties as per the allotment made in the Will executed by his father. The first defendant also submitted that the property, which was allotted to the second defendant, namely, the plaintiff's mother was subsequently settled in favour of the first defendant and it was only for this reason, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit. 3. 1. It is also the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff herself has executed a sale deed in favour of one Krishnan, by a registered sale deed, dated 25.10.2002 in respect of the suit 'C' schedule property, which was given to her in the Will. It is also stated that the plaintiff is estopped from disputing the Will after selling the property of the testator as per the Will executed by her father.