Kerala High Court
Koopayil Santha vs C.K. Savithri on 6 November, 2012
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/15TH KARTHIKA 1934
RSA.No. 1220 of 2012 ()
-----------------------
AS.10/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY
OS.583/2007 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
--------------------------------
KOOPAYIL SANTHA,
D/O.JANAKI, AGED 41 YEARS, DOMESTIC WORKER, RESIDING AT KP-XII/382,
KURUVOTTUMOOLA, KUTTYATTOR AMSOM,DESOM,
KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------
C.K. SAVITHRI,
W/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN,AGED 65 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT SANDEEP NIVAS, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR,
KANNUR TALUK-670006.
RR BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
R.S.A. No.1220 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2012.
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.583 of 2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur is aggrieved by the decree for recovery of possession of the suit property, a building, as confirmed by learned Additional Sub Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.10 of 2009 and has preferred this Second Appeal.
2. If the case of the respondent were true, it would appear that the appellant joined the late Lakshmanan as his maid servant and later assumed the role of his wife even at a time when his legally wedded wife was alive, not to say that the marriage of the appellant with one Valsalan was also subsisting. It would appear that Lakshmanan was staying away from the respondent, his legally wedded wife and their children for sometime during which time the appellant joined him as above stated. It would also appear that Lakshmanan had nominated the appellant as his nominee in some of the life insurance policies even describing her as his wife. While so, Lakshmanan died on 12.03.2007. That was followed by the respondent filing O.S.No.583 of 2007 for recovery of possession of the building mentioned in the plaint schedule claiming that the said building belonged to the late Lakshmanan, he died intestate and on his death, that building devolved on the respondent. It is also RSA No.1220/2012 2 the case of the respondent that Lakshmanan had permitted the appellant to stay in the building in the suit property and that permission came to an end by the death of Lakshmanan.
3. Answering that case of the respondent, appellant claimed that Lakshmanan had married her on 08.08.1989 and since then, they were residing together as man and wife until his death due to heart attack on 12.03.2007. On 09.03.2007, (ie. just three days prior to the death) Lakshmanan had executed Ext.B1, Will bequeathing the building referred to in the plaint schedule and the land appurtenant to the appellant. The appellant claimed to be the absolute owner in possession of the building and the property referred to in Ext.B1.
4. The learned Munsiff found that the appellant could not claim the status of a legally wedded wife since her marriage with Valsalan and the marriage of the late Lakshmanan with the respondent were subsisting on the day Lakshmanan is said to have married the appellant.
5. So far as execution of Ext.B1, Will is concerned, the learned Munsiff held that its due execution is not proved and that the evidence revealed that the Will is allegedly executed in suspicious circumstances which its propounder, the appellant was not able to remove. Thus, it was found that the claim of bequest of the building and the adjoining property to the appellant cannot be accepted. Consequently, on the strength of title which devolved on RSA No.1220/2012 3 the respondent by inheritance she was given a decree for recovery of possession. That judgment and decree were confirmed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.10 of 2009.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no specific plea in the plaint against execution of Ext.B1, Will. It is argued that even after the appellant pleaded so in the written statement, the respondent has not chosen to file a rejoinder in answer to the statement in the written statement regarding due execution and attestation of Ext.B1, Will, not to say about mentioning the alleged suspicious circumstances in a rejoinder which could have been filed by the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the observation made by the courts below that execution of Ext.B1, Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances is not correct. According to the learned counsel, any amount of evidence regarding alleged suspicious circumstances without plea is of no use and cannot be looked into. Authorities are cited to show that evidence without pleading cannot be looked into. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that due execution and attestation of Ext.B1 are proved by the evidence of DWs 2 and 3. There is no evidence to show that appellant had taken any lead role in the execution of Ext.B1. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that so far as alleged forgery of Ext.B1 is concerned, even the evidence of PW1 would not support that since she claimed that she RSA No.1220/2012 4 does not know whether the Will was executed or not. In the circumstances, the finding of the courts below are not correct and involves substantial questions of law, it is argued.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the courts below have concurrently found against due execution and attestation of Ext.B1, Will which is a finding of fact based on evidence and involves no substantial question of law. It is argued that it is the responsibility of the propounder to prove due execution of the Will which has not been done. According to the learned counsel, execution of Ext.B1 is shrouded in suspicious circumstances. In the circumstances finding of the courts below requires no interference. The learned counsel has also a contention that the late Lakshmanan had acquired another item of property in the name of the appellant and in that assignment deed the late Lakshmanan figured as an attestor.
8. I am now concerned with the finding of the courts below as to the due execution and attestation of Ext.B1 and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding in its due execution are not removed.
9. I am not inclined to accept the contention that in answer to the plea the appellant had raised in the written statement based on Ext.B1, Will, the respondent was obliged to file a rejoinder. A rejoinder is required, under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure only in answer to a claim of set off RSA No.1220/2012 5 or counter claim raised by the defendant. No doubt, it was open to the respondent to file a rejoinder answering the contentions raised in the written statement on obtaining leave of the court. But, the law does not require that the respondent ought to have filed a rejoinder. Moreover, when (Ext.B1) the Will is set up by the appellant, burden was on her to prove its due execution and attestation. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others (AIR 1959 SC 443), it is held that the propounder is to prove the due execution of the Will and that any suspicious circumstances surrounding the due execution are also to be removed by the propounder whether or not it is pleaded by the opposite party. Therefore, that there was no rejoinder from the respondent is of no consequence.
10. So far as Ext.B1 is concerned, it is allegedly executed on 09.03.2007 while Lakshmanan died on 12.03.007. According to the appellant, death was due to heart attack. DW1, the appellant has given evidence regarding the alleged execution of the Will. DWs 2 and 3 are the attestors in Ext.B1. DW2, it is admitted is the husband of sister of the appellant. DW3 is a close friend of DW2.
11. The evidence of DW2 is that a few days prior to the (alleged) execution of Ext.B1, Lakshmanan had invited him to his residence and accordingly, he went there. The Will was read over and Lakshmanan and DWs 2 and 3 signed that document. DW3 would say that as requested by RSA No.1220/2012 6 Lakshmanan, he went to the shop of Lakshmanan where the Will was read over to the appellant as well. Thereafter they proceeded to the house of Lakshmanan where the document was executed and Lakshmanan and DWs 2 and 3 signed it.
12. The courts below observed that evidence of DWs 2 and 3 do not inspire confidence and that there are contradictions in their evidence. One thing that emerges from the evidence of DWs 2 and 3 is that they are closely related or interested in the appellant. DW2 did not conceal his desire that the property should go to the appellant (obviously because he is closely related to her). It is not as if DW2 said that the Will was executed and hence the property should go to the appellant. A further fact to be noticed is that none of DWs 1 to 3 could say who had prepared the Will and, when and where? It is not clear how the Will came to the hands of the late Lakshmanan. At least DW1 was expected to give evidence as to when, where and who had prepared the Will. It is not clear what was the necessity for Lakshmanan to execute the Will just three days prior to his death if the death was due to heart attack and unexpected.
13. That the Will was not registered is a further circumstance to be looked into. I am aware that a Will is not compulsorily registrable and that registration is not a substitute for proof of its execution. But, if the Will is registered, that would give some credence to the version of the propounder as to its due execution. There is no explanation why there was no attempt to register the Will notwithstanding that it was executed on 09.03.2007 and so far as the appellant has no case that Lakshmanan was on the death bed so that no RSA No.1220/2012 7 attempt was made to get the Will registered. Even according to the appellant, the death was unexpected and happened on 12.03.2007 in which case every attempt would have been made to get the Will registered even during the life time of Lakshmanan. No such attempt was made.
14. The non-production of the disputed Will at the earliest point of time is yet another suspicious circumstance. It has come in evidence that preceding the institution of the suit, the appellant had preferred complaints to the local police and the local authority concerning right over the property. It is admitted that in those complaints, there was no reference to the disputed Will. DW2 attempted to salvage the situation by saying that he also had accompanied the appellant to the Police Station where, though in the complaint there was no reference to the Will, the fact of Will was mentioned. There is however no supporting evidence for that interested version of DW2.
15. A further fact to be noted is that immediately before institution of the suit, the respondent had issued a notice to the appellant stating that the building belongs to her by inheritance. That was the last opportunity when the appellant could have informed the respondent about the existence of the Will. Admittedly, the appellant did not send a reply to that notice. These are circumstances to indicate that the Will could have come into existence only after RSA No.1220/2012 8 the institution of the suit. It is for the said reasons that the courts below said that the Will is the result of forgery, that its execution is not proved and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution are not cleared.
16. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Sec.68 of the Evidence Act to contend that the obligation on the propounder is discharged by examining DWs 2 and 3. I must notice, what is required is not the mere examination of the attesting witnesses. Evidence of the attesting witnesses must be reliable and acceptable.
17. The attempt of the learned counsel for appellant is to rely on the evidence of the respondent as PW1. In the proof affidavit she stated that no such Will was executed by her late husband. In cross examination, she stated that she had applied for and obtained a certified copy of the Will produced by the appellant in the trial court. It is further stated that she does not know about (alleged) execution of the Will.
18. Naturally, that is all what the respondent could say. For, nobody has a case that the Will was executed in her presence. Therefore, she could only plead ignorance about the execution of Will. However in the proof affidavit she denied that there was any such execution. At least, the respondent has not admitted that the Will was executed. The burden was on the appellant to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will.
RSA No.1220/2012 9
19. A further fact I must notice is that notwithstanding that in the proof affidavit, the respondent as PW1 has denied that any such Will was executed, the cross-examination does not show that PW1 was confronted with Ext.B1 and the signature in Ext.B1 allegedly of her husband. It was necessary for the appellant to confront the respondent when the latter was in the box with the disputed signature in Ext.B1 and invite her response to that question. The appellant was careful enough not to confront the respondent with the disputed signature in Ext.B1 and invite an answer that the signature in Ext.B1 is not of the late Lakshmanan. Nor did the appellant make any attempt to summon the admitted signature of the late Lakshmanan and get it compared with the expert or, leave it open to the court to compare it for itself under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances courts below found against the due execution and attestation of Ext.B1 and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution having been cleared by the appellant, the propounder. This finding of the courts below is based on the evidence on record or lack of evidence on the side of the appellant. That involves no substantial question of law.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the relief sought for in the plaint is with respect to the building alone, the trial court has granted relief with respect to the adjoining property as well. RSA No.1220/2012 10
21. I am given a copy of the plaint. It is seen that in the plaint schedule, eight (8) cents is described. But, the relief prayed for is with respect to the building in the suit property. The court fee paid is also for recovery of possession of the building based on its market value assessed under Sec.7(3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore, the relief stood stand confined to the building in the property described in the plaint schedule.
22. In the light of the above, I find no reason to entertain the Second Appeal. But, it is made clear that recovery of possession sought for is only with respect to the building referred to in the plaint schedule.
With the above clarification, the Second Appeal is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks