P MOOKAIYAN Vs. V JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Judgment: O.S.A. No.129/2001 is filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2001 made in T.O.S.No,23 of 1999.

(2.) SECOND Appeal No,676/2003 is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.118/2001 dated 14.02.2003 by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(3.) ONE Krishnaveni Ammal executed a Will at Madras on 15.10.1987. She was residing at No,42, Narasier Street, Old Washermenpet, Madras-21. Her husband Ponnusamy died on 15.03.1988. The said Krishnaveni Ammal died intestate on 07.10.1988. There is no executor in the Will. The plaintiff Jayaraman as well as defendants 1 to 3 are the beneficiaries under the Will. The said three defendants are sisters of the plaintiff-Jayaraman and all of them are sisters and brother of Krishnaveni Ammal and these three sisters have given consent to the probate. The said Krishnaveni Ammal and her husband jointly sold the eastern side portion of the property at No,34, New Magazine Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai on 26.08.1987 to the fifth defendant-Mookaiyan, the appellant in the present appeals. The fourth defendant-Sakina Beevi also purchased 3/4 of the share of the suit property from the three sisters of Krishnaveni Ammal/defendants 1 to 3. The fifth defendant/appellant herein also alleged that he purchased the same property by sale deed dated 11.12.1989 from the legal heirs of Ponnuswamy. Subsequently, the plaintiff-Jayaraman also sold his 1/4 share in the suit property to the fourth defendant on 12.01.1995. The plaintiff filed O.P.No.124/1994 before this Court, in which, probate was granted. After probate of the Will, the said plaintiff sold 1/4 of his share in the suit property to the fourth defendant. Thereafter, the fifth defendant/appellant filed a petition to revoke the probate and subsequently, probate was revoked. In these circumstances, O.P. was filed seeking for Letters of Administration, which has now been converted into Testamentary Original Suit No,23 of 1999. Defendants 1 to 3 have given consent affidavits to the letters of administration and the fourth defendant has also given her no objection. Only, the fifth defendant/appellant has disputed the genuineness of the Will. On pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: