P PAPAYAMMAL Vs. CHANDRIKA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 10.12.2009, the petition for grant of probate O.P.No.734 of 2007, in respect of the last Will and Testament of one late S.V.Lakshmi Ammal, was ordered in favour of one Dr. Ms. Chandrika Ayyar, the daughter of the Testatrix.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY. One Ms.P. Papayammal came up with an application in A.No.2402 of 2008 under Section 263f the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation of the Probate, on the ground that she was the daughter of the Testatrix and that Probate was obtained behind her back, by Dr.Chandrika Ayyar. On 24.4.2008, time was granted to Dr.Chandrika Ayyar, for filing counter in A.No.2402 of 2008 and in the meantime, she was directed not to alienate the property by making use of the Probate.

(3.) IN the main O.P. No.734 of 2007, the petitioner Dr.Chandrika Ayyar came up with a claim-(a) that she is the only daughter of late O.V. parthasarathy and late S.V.Lakshmi ammal(b) that her father predeceased her mother at Calcutta(c) that her mother had purchased the property bearing Plot No.66,Door No.30/21,Arcot Street, T.Nagar,Chennai-17 under am sale Deed dated 23.8.1940 and that her mother had also constructed a house therein and was in possession and enjoyment thereof(d) that during November 2005,she had engaged the services of -Sree Nursing Care- run by one Vijaya Baskar to look after her aged and ailing mother (Testatrix),who had by then been discharged from Isbel Hospital(e) that the said Vijaya Basker was to engage two nurses in turn system for a period of one month during November-December 2005 and the fee was to be collected by Vijaya Basker at her house(f) That the petitioner-s mother (Testatrix) died on 24.12.2005 at her own house and that two weeks before her death, the nursing services were stopped(g) That Vijaya Basker later visited the house of the petitioner twice and lastly on 1.6.2007 and that on 1.6.2007, Vijaya Basker asked her for a glass of water and when she was pouring water, into the glass, she was knocked out unconscious(h) That when she regained consciousness, she found herself in an apartment, being held captive for three days by Vijaya Basker (i) That she was later taken to a ground floor apartment and illegally detained till 6.6.2007(j) That she had sustained injuries on her head and had sutures on her scalp and her face was swollen(k) That on 6.6.2007, she was given three bunches of keys to her steel almirah, the -safe- at home and her bank locker let off in Jagadeeswaran Street, T.Nager, where many of her relatives lived.(l) That with the help of her relatives, she went home the next day sand found all the original documents, tax demand cards, bank pass books, cheque books and the original will of her mother missing from almirah(m) That on 20.6.2007, she gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police against Vijaya Basker about the assault, abduction and the theft of documents(n) That even on 2.6.2007, her niece J.Vidya had given a complaint to the INspector of Police, Mambalam Police Station about the sudden disappearance of the petitioner from her house on 1.6.2007 and a FIR was registered in Crime No.481 of 2007(o) That, Vijaya Basker was later arrested and was also detained under the Goondas Act(p) That since the original Will was stolen she had filed the O.P., with a certified copy available with her(q) That under the Will the petitioner was appointed as the Executrix and the property was bequeathed in her favour(r) That the Testatrix did not leave behind any Will other than the one which forms the subject matter of the proceedings(s) That the Will was attested by two wit-ness K.S. Narayanan and K.R. Venkataraman, both of whom are not alive, but the Testatrix and one of the Attesters are close relatives of one S.Jagannathan, who was familiar with the handwriting and signature of both of them(t) That she is the only legal heir of her mother and the sole beneficiary under the Will and that there is no next of kin or other person interested, to be impleaded(u) That she was filing the petition in her capacity as the Executrix and that the amount of assets likely to come to her hands would not exceed in the aggregate, a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000 /- and(v) That she may be permitted to prove the will in common form.