C THIRUPURASUNDARI Vs. C ANANDA SUNDARARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS testimentary original suit has been filed by the plaintiff to grant Letters of Administration with the Will annexed having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

(2.) THE short facts are:

(3.) TO appreciate the above contention, I have carefully and critically analysed the evidence of P.W.1, the propounder and P.W.2, one of the attestors to the Will and P.W.3, an advocate and cousin of the plaintiff and the defendant, with whom the testatrix had discussed about the procedure for executing the Will. The evidence of P.W.1 shows at the time the Will was executed, i.e., during October, 1988, she was in London working in the Indian Embassy and she was not present in India. She came to India in December, 1988 and at that time only, her mother told her about the holograph Will executed by her and bequeathing the property in her favour. P.W.2, one of the attestors to the Will deposed that he was working as a stenographer originally in the city civil court and after retirement in 1987, he joined the chambers of Mr.A.Venkatesan, Advocate, P.W.3 as Stenographer. According to him, the testatrix came to the office of Venkatesan on the previous day of the execution of the Will, namely, on 5.10.1988 and discussed with Venkatesan about the procedure for executing the Will and she took some notes. According to him, the other attestor Narasimhan is a colleague of Mr.Venkatesan. P.W.2 added on 6.10.1988, the testatrix came to the office of Mr.Venkatesan and she herself wrote the Will in her own handwriting and executed the document at about 12.45 p.m. in the presence of Narasimhan and himself. P.W.2 is very definite that the testatrix was hale and healthy at the time she executed the Will. He asserted they saw the testatrix executing the document and the testatrix saw he and the other attestor putting their signatures in the Will, Ex.P-13. Thereafter, the testatrix, himself, the other attestor Narasimhan and Mr.Venkatesan went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar at George TOwn and the Will was presented by the testatrix at 2.30 p.m. and there the Testatrix put her signature and also affixed her thumb impression. He and Narasimhan signed as identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar and it was registered at 4.00 p.m. According to him, he met P.W.1 only in the year 1993 when she came to the office of Venkatesan to apply to the court for the issue of Letters of Administration. At that time, she came with her brother, the defendant and he typed the consent affidavit, Ex.P-17 of the defendant which was dictated by Mr.Venkatesan. P.W.2 emphatically denied the suggestion that the affidavit, Ex.P-17 was typed on a blank paper already containing the signature of the defendant Ananda Sundararaman. The evidence of P.W.2 further shows the other attestor to the Will Narasimhan is laid down with paralysis and he is not in a position to move about.