Madras High Court
Soundhararajan vs M.Dhanachakravarthi (Died) ...1St on 8 December, 2015
A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 01.02.2021
DELIVERED ON : 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
Soundhararajan ..Appellant/11th Defendant
Vs.
1.M.Dhanachakravarthi (died) ...1st Respondent / Plaintiff
M.Kamala (deceased)
Ammu @ Kalaichelvi (deceased)
Chinnakulanthai (deceased)
2.Selvaraj
3.Deveraj
4.Thirugnanachelvi
5.Kasthhuri
6.Shanthakumari
7.Easwaran
8.Narendran
9.Keerthi
10.Aarthi
11.Arun ..Respondents 2 to 11 /Defendants 4 to 10 & 12 to 14
1/52
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
12.Shanthi ..12th Respondent
(1st respondent died. Respondents 9 to 11 who are already on record are
the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent, vide memo in USR.
5383/2017, dated 08.12.2015 is recorded, vide Court Order, dated
24.10.2016.)
(12th respondent is brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased first
respondent, vide Court Order, dated 26.08.2019, made in CMP No.7592
of 2019.)
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of
the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated
18.04.2012, made in O.S. No.4 of 2005 on the file of Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Balamurugan
For R-1 : died
For R-2 to R-8 : No Appearance
For R-9 to R-12 : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Jeyaprakash
----
JUDGMENT
As against the finding of the Trial Court, this appeal has been filed by the 11th defendant in OS.No.4 of 2005, against the 2/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 judgment and decree, dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.
2. The brief facts, leading to file the appeal suit, are as follows:
The Plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant and one Manoharan, Doctor by profession. All of them born to Munusamy and Yasodammal. The said Munusamy was in Army and he died on 22.07.1948, leaving behind his wife Yasodammal and his three children, namely, the plaintiff, first defendant and one Manoharan. After the death of Munusamy, Yasodammal was eking out livelihood with the help of the parents house at Vellore and her brother, namely Duraisamy, purchased the properties measuring to an extent of 1 acre 61 cents with well therein, on 02.05.1960, in the name of Yasodammal. The said Yasodammal derived income from the above properties and also by mortgaging the properties, educate her children, namely, plaintiff, first defendant and one Manoharan. In the year 1973, the first defendant joined as a Junior Assistant in Vellore Electricity Department. Thereafter, transferred to Chennai and Manoharan has also imparted education by the plaintiff and his mother, he became a Doctor on 01.09.1975. He worked as a Doctor 3/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 for three years at Chennai and stayed with the plaintiff and the first defendant.
3. The first defendant remained unmarried only in order to help the said Manoharan and she has contributed her entire salary for the purchase of properties in the name of Manoharan. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the first defendant decided to reside along with Manoharan and contributed the funds for the purchase of the properties. Accordingly, the suit properties were purchased by Manoharan in his name. Though the properties are purchased in his name, those properties are joint family properties. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the properties of mother situated at Vellore was sold for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and the said amount was given to Manoharan to develop the properties. Out of the said amount, Manoharan has constructed a house and a marriage hall in the name of his mother Yasodammal. The construction was completed in the year 2001. The entire buildings were put up from the contribution made by the plaintiff from the sale amount of Mother's properties. Manoharan met with an accident on 21.05.2000 and suffered fracture, head injury and lost his conscious. The plaintiff has also spent huge amount towards the medical expenses. After such accident, the plaintiff 4/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 has also paid a personal amount for completing the building. It is also stated in the pleadings that mother Yasodammal died on 29.01.1997. Even after the accident, Manoharan fell down in the bathroom on 01.01.2002. Thereafter, he was not able to look after himself, at the time the second defendant, the cousin of Manoharan was appointed to do house hold duties and the said Manoharan died in the year 04.10.2004, without executing any Will. The last rites was performed by the plaintiff's son Arun. After the death of Manoharan, who remained unmarried, the properties devolved upon the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The second defendant has created a false document and attempted to obtain necessary name transfer in the Revenue and Municipal records.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died on 12.10.2007, leaving behind his mother, the third defendant as legal heir. The third defendant also died on 01.08.2008, leaving behind the defendants 4 to 11 as legal heirs. The plaintiff died and his children Defendants 12 to 14 were impleaded as legal heirs. Hence, the suit is filed for partition and other reliefs.
5/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
5.The second defendant who was originally a contesting defendant disputing that the suit properties are joint family properties, submitted that Manoharan is a famous Doctor, he is an expert in Toxicology and earned lot of money and also run a medical clinic individually and retired from service on 30.06.2004. Only after his retirement, he died on 04.10.2004. Admitting that he met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg, it was denied that there was a head injury. It is the contention of the second defendant that Manoharan has executed a Will on 21.02.2000, while in a sound disposing state of mind, bequeathing the suit properties in favour the second defendant. The Will is a registered one. Even after the registration of the Will, Manoharan lived for more than 2 years and three months. The suit properties were the exclusive, separate properties of the said Manoharan. The Plaintiff and the first defendant did not contribute any money for purchasing the suit properties and for putting up construction. Manoharan was not having any ancestral properties and there was no joint family properties. Hence, dispute the claim of the plaintiff.
6.The 11th defendant filed a written statement and adopted by the defendants 5 and 8. The 11th defendant adopting the statement of 6/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 the second defendant, took a stand that the suit is not maintainable without prayer for declaration and permanent injunction. The second defendant died on 12.10.2007 leaving behind his mother third defendant as her legal heir and enjoyed the same as an absolute owner and in turn she executed a registered Will on 01.11.2007 in favour of his son, 11th defendant herein, while she was in sound state of mind.
7.The 14th defendant filed a written statement and adopted by the Defendants 12 and 13, to the effect that the properties are joint family properties. Therefore, the defendants 12 to 14 are also each entitled to 1/4th share along with the plaintiff.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties ?
2. Whether the suit properties are separate properties of Manoharan ?
3. Whether the Will, dated 21.06.2002 executed by Manoharan is valid and true or suffer from suspicious circumstances?
7/52
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
4. Whether the Will dated 01.11.2007 in favour of the 11th defendant by the third defendant is true and valid or attaches with suspicious circumstances ?
5. Whether the suit as such framed is not maintainable ?
6. Whether the suit properties purchased out of the joint family income ?
7. Whether the defendants 12 to 14 are each entitled to 1/4th share ?
9. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to Exs.A.43 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW.1 to D.W.8 were examined and Exs.B.1 to Exs.B.53 were marked.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has concluded that the suit properties were treated as a joint family properties and purchased by Manoharan and also disbelieved the Will - Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.46. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the eleventh defendant has filed this appeal suit. 8/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
11. It is the main contention of the appellant that the suit properties are exclusive and separate properties of Dr.Manoharan and the said Manoharan is a junior member of the joint family, consisting the plaintiff, first defendant and Dr.Manoharan. The suit properties are purchased by Manoharan under Exs.B.1 to Exs.B.4. During the life time of Dr.Manoharan, the plaintiff never chosen to claim any right or share in the plaint schedule properties purchased by the said Manoharan. The properties are the exclusive, separate properties of Dr.Manoharan. Manoharan was employed in Government service as a Doctor, besides having private practise also. He is a famous toxicologist and earned very good amount.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, the properties acquired by any member of joint family be means of learning or skill will be the separate properties of such member. On that score alone, the lower Court ought to have held that the suit properties are the separate properties of the said Manoharan. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the contribution made by him to put up construction for the house and marriage hall. Further, joint family did 9/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 not have any ancestral means or ancestral properties. No evidence has been produced by the plaintiff in this regard and no documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff to show that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was handed over to Manoharan, out of the sale consideration of the properties of his mother Yasodammal.
13.The allegation that Dr.Manoharan, met with an accident and his mental capability was affected, there is no evidence or medical evidence produced, whereas, Ex.B.6 clearly shows that even after the accident he worked as a Government servant and retired. Hence, it is the contention that the Law itself declares that the properties acquired by any member of the family by his learning or skill would be a separate properties. The Trial Court failed to consider the same and simply held that the properties are joint family properties. It is the further contention that Ex.B.7 is the Will executed in favour of the second defendant, who is none other than the cousin sister of the said Manoharan. Though the said Manoharan is unmarried, the second defendant was looking after him and helping him from the year 1980. The plaintiff and the first defendant never looked after the said Manoharan. In fact, the plaintiff and the first defendant are residing separately in Chennai. Only due to 10/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 the service rendered by the second defendant from the year 1980, the said Manoharan has executed a Will Ex.B.7 in favour of the second defendant, while he was in sound disposing state of mind. The execution and attestation of the Will has been spoken to by the attesting witness and scribe D.W.2 and D.W.3. The Will is a registered Will and no circumstances which are in the nature of suspicion, are found in the Will. D.W.2 and D.W.3 have clearly spoken about not only execution, attestation and the mental capacity of the testator. Their evidence has not been shattered and no suspicious circumstances were brought on record by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is his further contention that the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper manner and simply disbelieved the Will. Hence, his contention is that Ex.B.7 has been clearly proved in the manner known to law. The testator is not an ordinary man. He is a very famous Doctor himself gone to the Registrar Office and executed a Will. Therefore, as per Ex.B.7, the entire properties were bequeathed to second defendant. She became the absolute owner of the properties. Merely because, the plaintiff and the first defendant and other legal heirs of the Doctor were disinherited in the Will, the same itself cannot be a ground to hold that there is a suspicious circumstances in the Will. Hence, it is the contention that the 11/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 second defendant became the absolute owner of the property and she died during the pendency of the suit, thereby, the third defendant, the mother of the second defendant was brought on record. The third defendant also died during the pendency of the suit, thereby, her children were impleaded as legal heirs, namely defendants 4 to 11, in the suit.
14.It is his further contention that the third defendant has executed a Will Ex.B.46 in favour of the 11th defendant, on 1.11.2007, which is also a registered Will. D.W.6 one of the attesting witness in the Will clearly spoken about the execution and attestation as well as the mental condition of the testatrix of Ex.B.46. Therefore, his contention is that the 11th defendant has became the absolute owner of the suit properties, the plaintiff has no right whatsoever, the Will Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.46 clearly proved in the manner known to law. Therefore, the Trial Court granting decree in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 12 to 14 is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal suit.
12/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
15. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments reported in
1) 2014(2) Supreme Court Cases 269 in the case of Union of India and Others /Vs./ Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others
2) 2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 387 in the case of Mahesh Kumar (dead) by Legal heirs Vs. Vinod Kumar and others
3) AIR 1938 Calcutta - 69
4) AIR 1947 PC 187
5)1992 (2) Supreme Court Cases 717
6) 1996 (1) LW 663
7) 2003(10) Supreme Court Cases 310 in the case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and another
8) AIR 2008 Supreme Court 300
9) 2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 387
10) 2012 (7) Madras Law Journal 776 in the case of K.Govindarajan Vs. K.Subramanian
11) 2007 (11) Supreme Court Cases 621 in the case of Savithri and Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma and Others
12)ILR 2008 Karnataka 2115 in the case of Sri J.T.Surappa and another Vs. Sri Satchidhanandendra 13/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
16.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 9 to 12/ contesting defendants 12 to 14 that though the properties were purchased in the name of Dr.Manoharan, the above purchase is out of the contribution made by the other joint family members. After the death of Munusamy, the plaintiff, first defendant and Manoharan along with their mother Yasodammal were residing in joint family. It is the contention that the contribution made by the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, is not denied in written statement and the first defendant remained unmarried and she was also employed in Government Service. The plaintiff is also employed in Government Service and the entire salary has been contributed for the development of joint family. Though, Manoharan became a Doctor, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the properties were purchased only from and out of his professional income. In the absence of any evidence to show that the properties were purchased only out of the income from his learning skill, such purchase cannot be presumed to be a separate property of the said Manoharan. Further contention is that the mother's properties were sold for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- is also not denied. The categorical evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 that the sale consideration 14/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 mobilized from the sale of mother's properties was given to Dr.Manoharan, who has settled in Kujiliyambarai, to develop the joint family properties. Accordingly, the construction work was carried out of the income given by the joint family properties. No evidence was filed to show that Dr.Manoharan had sufficient funds to construct a marriage hall as well as a house to the tune of more than Rs.45,00,000/- at the relevant point of time. The defendants admitting the status of the joint family in the written statement, now cannot contend that the entire properties were purchased and construction put up by the Dr.Manoharan's own income. It is also submitted that admittedly, Manoharan met with an accident in the year 2000, which is also not denied by the defendants. After the accident, he was not in a position to look after himself at the relevant point of time, the second defendant who is the cousin sister was employed as a house maid to help Dr.Manoharan. Taking advantage of the above fact that the plaintiff and the first defendant were residing in Chennai, in order to grab the properties, a registered Will has been obtained by the second defendant.
17. It is the contention that Ex.A.28 another Will said to have been executed by Dr.Manoharan was cancelled on the same day. 15/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 Ex.B.7 and Ex.A.28 makes it very clear that the previous Will was obtained, when Dr.Manoharan was bedridden and taking treatment for his accidental injuries. The same attesting Witness also signed as a attesting witness in Ex.B.7 Will. The evidence of the parties do not indicate any strained relationship among the plaintiff, first defendant and Dr.Manoharan. The joint family status also not denied. Therefore, disinheriting testator's own kith and kin without any valid reason itself is one of the suspicious circumstances. It is his further contention that the Will said to have been written on 21.01.2002, but the same was registered after a week. This also one of the serious suspicious circumstances, the attesting witnesses in parrot like version stated other than the Ex.B.7 Will, they never signed any document, whereas, Ex.A.28 falsify the same in fact the attesting witnesses in the Will are none other than the Health Inspector and others who was closely acquainted with the D.W.2. Hence, his contention is that suspicious circumstances is inherent in the very Will, same were not been dispelled by the propounder in this case.
18. It is the contention that the signature of the attesting witness in the Will, during the alleged date of execution of the Will and 16/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 also the date of registration differs with each other. This itself is also one of the serious suspicious circumstances. It is his further contention that Ex.B.46 another Will said to have been executed by the third defendant, after the death of the second defendant, excluding all other legal heirs and bequeathing the entire properties to the 11th defendant. At the time of alleged Will, the third defendant was aged about 92 years, she was under apparent control of the 11th defendant, namely the appellant. She is a rustic illiterate woman. On the same day, the power of attorney was also obtained by the 11th defendant. The attesting witnesses are none other than the wife of the 11th defendant and one auto driver. These facts clearly created a serious doubt about the execution of Ex.B.46 Will. The Propounders not dispelled the suspicious circumstances attached to the Will. Therefore, it is the contention that the Trial Court after analysing the entire facts rightly concluded that both the Wills projected by the defendants 2 and 11 is unbelievable and held that the plaintiff and the defendants 12 to 14 are entitled to get share in the suit properties. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
19. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 12, relied on the judgment reported in CDJ 2020 SC 423 17/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 in the case of Bhagwat Sharan (dead through legal heirs) /Vs./ Purushottam and Others.
20. In the light of the above submission, the following points arose for consideration in this appeal are as follows :
1. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff, first defendant and their brother Manoharan ?
2. Whether the suit properties are the exclusive properties of Dr.Manoharan, as per the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 ?
3.Whether the Will dated 21.06.2002 executed by one Manoharan in favour of the second defendant is true and valid or attached with suspicious circumstances ?
4.Whether the Will dated 01.11.2007 executed by the third defendant in favour of the 11th defendant is true and valid or attached with suspicious circumstances ?
5. What reliefs the parties are entitled to ? 18/52
http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
21. I have perused the entire records.
Point Nos.1 and 2 :-
22. The litigation in this appeal is between the Class-II legal heirs of Dr.Manoharan on one side and the person claims to be the owner on the strength of the Will and claims to be a cousin sister of the plaintiff, first defendant and Dr.Manoharan on other side.
23. The suit has been originally laid for partition of the properties on the ground that though the properties stood in the name of Dr.Manoharan, which was purchased from the income of the joint family and buildings were put up from the contribution made by the plaintiff, who is also an employee in the Government Service. The first defendant also remain unmarried, she was also contributing her entire salary to her brother. It is the further stand of the plaintiff that their mother had properties at Vellore which was sold in the year 1998 for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The above amount was also paid to Dr.Manoharan for construction of the building and marriage hall in the suit properties. It is an admitted fact that Manoharan, who was a Doctor by profession, remained unmarried and died on 04.10.2004. It is not disputed by both 19/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 sides, the properties are originally purchased in the name of Manoharan, as per Ex.A.5 and Exs.B.1 to B.4.
24. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the death of his father Munusamy, in the year 1948, mother Yasodammal managed the family and his uncle purchased the property in the name of his mother in the year 1960, thereby his mother possessed 1 acre 61 cents at Vellore. The above property was sold for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in the year 1998 and the amount was handed over the Dr.Manoharan, for putting up construction of house and marriage hall in the suit properties. It is specifically pleaded that till the death of Manoharan, all are living together as a joint family. The second defendant, who is the cousin sister of the Manoharan admitted not only in the pleadings but also evidence that Manoharan was brought up by his mother. However, her stand was that the entire properties have been purchased by Manoharan out of his own income out of his profession and there is no joint family property or nucleus. However, in paragraph No.9 of the written statement, it is admitted that Manoharan, relinquished his 1/3rd share in the mother's property. In Paragraph No.11, it is specifically admitted by the second defendant that there was a joint family, however, taken a 20/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 defence that there was no joint family property. Though there are oral evidence let in on the side of both sides, the factum of joint family among the plaintiff, first defendant and Dr.Manoharan is not disputed. The only contention is that the joint family had no nucleus to contribute the fund to purchase the properties, purchased in the name of Manoharan and for construction of any building.
25.The law is well settled that "there is no presumption of a the property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. There was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available." It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003 (1) Supreme Court Cases 310, in the case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and others Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and others.
21/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
26. From the admitted pleading of both sides, it is specifically stated by the plaintiff that though the properties purchased in the name of Manoharan, the construction were put up only out of the sale consideration from the sale of their mother's property in the year 1998 and the construction work started in the year 1999 and completed in the year 2001.
27.In the meanwhile, Dr.Manoharan, met with an accident in the year 2000 and admitted in the hospital. This fact clearly indicates that during his hospitalization, the building was completed in the year 2001. In fact, these aspects is probabilised the plaintiff's case that the contribution has been made towards the construction of the building out of his mother's property income. It is also relevant to note that Manoharan, though Doctor by profession joined in the year 1980, to show that the entire property was acquired only out of the income from his profession, no documents or bank account relating to the doctor was also filed. It is also well settled that the properties purchased by Hindu undivided family member by means of learning or skill such property shall be treated as a separate property. In this regard, it is useful to refer the definition of Section 2 of Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, which 22/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 reads as follows :
"2.Definitions - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, -
(a) "acquirer" means a member of a Hindu undivided family, who acquires gains of learning;
(b) "gains of learning"means all acquisitions of property made substantially by means of learning, whether such acquisitions be made before or after the commencement of this Act and whether such acquisitions be the ordinary or the extraordinary result of such learning."
28. On a careful perusal of the above definition, the gains of learning means all the acquisitions made substantially by means of learning that means the acquisitions of the property ought to have been made only out of the earning i.e., professional income. Once such evidence is available on record that the properties have been acquired out of the professional income of the Manoharan then it can be said that such acquisition is separate property of member of Hindu undivided family, even though the entire education of such member has been imparted out of the joint family income or funds etc. To apply the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, it must be shown that the acquisition of the 23/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 property was made substantially by means of learning or skill i.e, the income through the profession of a member, whereas, in this case, except contending that the entire property was purchased out of the income of the said Manoharan, no document was filed to show that said Manoharan had sufficient income out of his profession to purchase the properties. Ex.A.5 indicate that the properties have been purchased for a sum of Rs. 37,500/- Similarly, Exs.B.1 to B.3 indicate that the properties have been purchased in the year 1986, 1991 and 2001 for a sum of Rs.8450/-, Rs.11,500/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. Ex.A.5 amount and Ex.B.4 is also the same amount. Though the sale deeds stand in the name of Manoharan, whether the sale consideration is out of the income by his profession, there is no evidence. Admittedly, he has joined service in the year 1980. From the year 1986 onwards, he started purchasing the properties till 1993, what was the nature of the salary and income derived by his profession absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the entire property purchased out of the professional income.
29.Be that as it may, the constructions were completed in the year 2001, before that he also met with an accident. It is also admitted by both sides that he suffered injuries in the accident. Though, 24/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 the second defendant denied head injury suffered by him but she has admitted that he suffered fracture. P.W.1 to P.W.6 has spoken about the contribution made by the other family members of the family not only for purchase, but also the construction of the building. D.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that the said Manoharan and the plaintiff has jointly purchased the house in Chennai and the properties were purchased out of the sale consideration amount from his mother's property. It is further evidence of D.W.1 that 1980 onwards she is residing with Manoharan and looking after him and she was not in a position to state the salary of the said Manoharan. It is also an admitted that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was spent for construction of the house in the year 1999 and she is not aware whether Rupees Thirty lakhs or Rupees Forty lakhs, spent for construction of the marriage hall. D.W.1 in her evidence admitted that the marriage hall was in the name of Yasodammal, mother of the plaintiff, first defendant and Manoharan. It is the case of the second defendant that Manoharan joined as a Doctor in the year 1980. However, she has shown ignorance of the income of the Dr.Manoharan and no documents whatsoever filed to show that she is permanently residing in Kujiliamparai with Dr.Manoharan. If really, the second defendant was living with Dr.Manoharan and looking after him and he was showing 25/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 love and affection, normal course of event would be that permanent address of the second defendant would have been in the same place. But no documents whatsoever has been filed to show that she was all along residing with Dr.Manoharan. Though the other witnesses examined spoken that second defendant residing with Dr.Manoharan and looking after from the year 1980 and in the absence of any documentary evidence like ration card or voter identity card etc., it is unsafe to give much credence to oral evidence.
30. The plaintiff's case is that only when the Manoharan, met with an accident in the year 2000 and suffered serious injuries, when he was not able to look after himself, the second defendant was appointed as a servant-maid is more probable. Though the second defendant was taken a stand that there was no head injury and his mental condition was good and he never suffered injury by fall. Her stand is falsified by evidence of D.W.5, her own brother. D.W.5 in his evidence has clearly admitted in the cross examination, dated 08.11.2011 that besides accident injuries, second time also he suffered injury by fall. Therefore, the contention of the second defendant that Dr.Manoharan has never suffered any injury nor had a fall, is falsified by her own brother's 26/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 evidence namely, D.W.5.
31. On a perusal of the entire oral evidence and Will projected by the defendants, this Court has entertained a serious doubt about the case of the defendants. D.W.5 who is the 11th defendant / appellant herein, claims to be a owner of the properties on the basis of the Will Ex.B.46. It is to be noted that the third defendant is the mother of the second defendant, after the death of the second defendant during the pendency of the suit, her mother third defendant was brought on record. From the third defendant, it appears that Ex.B.46 said to have come in favour of the 11th defendant. The manner in which the second defendant died during the pendency of the suit, creates serious doubt in the mind of this Court. When the cross examination of D.W.2 by Defendants 2 to 14, makes it clear that the second defendant was died out homicide violence on 12.10.2007. After the death of the second defendant only the third defendant was impleaded. Now the Will Ex.B.46 has been projected.
32.Be that as it may, when the properties were acquired by undivided members of Hindu undivided family substantially by means of 27/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 his learning or skill, no doubt such property should be treated as a separate property of such person and it cannot be treated as a joint family property. However, merely the member of the joint family become a professional, without establishing any income to purchase or acquire the property substantially by means of learning or skill. One cannot merely contend that the properties purchased in his name is absolute property. The plaintiff case is more probable, in this case the pleadings of the plaintiff was not disputed seriously in the written statement as to joint family and its contribution and the sale of the mother's property. Further, construction costs is more than Rupees Forty Lakhs to Fifty Lakhs is not seriously disputed by the defendants.
33.The plaintiff's case is more probablised than the defendants case that the properties are acquired out of only contribution made by joint family. When the plaintiff has discharged initial burden onus would shift on the others, to shows that the property is separate property of undivided member and he had sufficient income to spend more than Rupees Forty Lakhs to put up construction. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the defendant that the property should be treated as only a separate 28/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 property as per the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 and in consequence, this Court hold that the plaintiff has proved existence of joint family and contributions that the defendant has not disproved the same. The probabilities in fact proves the plaintiff's case.
34.In Union of India and Others /Vs./ Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others, reported in 2014(2) Supreme Court Cases 269, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the alleged weakness if any in the case of defendant and claim that the suit has to be decreed.
35.In AIR 1938 Calcutta - 69, it has held that the presumption is that all the properties are divided and the person alleging the contrary should prove that all properties are not divided.
36.In AIR 1947 PC 187, it has held that proof of existence of joint family does not lead to the presumption that the property held by any member of family is joint family properties and the burden is on the person asserting that any property is joint family property to prove the 29/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 same.
37.In 1992 (2) Supreme Court Cases 717, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption against blending self acquired property with joint family properties.
38.In 1996 (1) LW 663, it has held that a person who alleges that the particular property was purchased with joint labour has to prove the same and further merely because there is a joint family, it does not mean that the family has any joint family properties. It is further held that any acquisition made by a person in Government service has to be held to be the separate property of that person.
39. In D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and another reported in 2003 (10) Supreme Court Cases 310, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption against blending and there is no presumption that the property is a joint family property merely because of the existence of joint family. It is further held that a person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property has to prove the same.
30/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
40. In K.Govindarajan Vs. K.Subramanian reported in 2012 (7) Madras Law Journal 776, this Court has held that any property purchased by a person out of his skill and learning is his separate property.
41.In Mahesh Kumar (dead) by Legal heirs Vs. Vinod Kumar and others reported in 2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 387, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is natural for the testator to execute the Will in favour of the person who looked after him before the death of testator and that propounder of the Will discharged onus by proving the due execution and attestation of the Will.
42. In AIR 2008 Supreme Court Cases 300, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because of the legal heir of testator disinherited in the Will for valid reason, it is not a suspicious circumstance.
43.In 2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 387, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that heirs can be excluded if the proper reasons are made out.
31/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
44. In Savithri and Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma and Others reported in 2007 (11) Supreme Court Cases 621, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a legal heir can be excluded from inheritance for valid reason and the testator can execute a Will in favour of a person who takes care of him.
45. In Sri J.T.Surappa and another Vs. Sri Satchidhanandendra reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka 2115, it has held that the reason for disinheriting a person need not be stated in the Will and it can be gathered from extrinsic evidence. Therefore, the legatee can prove by letting in evidence to show why a legal heir was disinherited and why the legatee was given property under the Will.
46. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to legal positions summarized in various judgments cited above. However, in most of the documents relied on by both sides relate to name change and tax receipts which are obtained after the litigation started between them. Those documents, are in no way relevant to prove their case. Much emphasis was placed on Ex.B.8, by the second defendant to contend that Dr.Manoharan has nominated her as a nominee in the insurance policy in the year 1993.
32/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
47. On perusal of Ex.B.8-original copy of the insurance policies given to Dr.Manoharan, his mother was shown as a nominee which is typed in carbon papers, whereas, in the last page of the above policy in between the signature of the Development Officer and Signature of the Life Insurer, certain sentences have been included and typed as if the second defendant was nominated in the place of Yasodammal. This Court is unable to accept the document for the simple reason that the typed portion has been incorporated above the signature. If really there was a change in the nominee, it must have been done through proper channel by giving necessary application etc. The very sentences incorporated in the last page of the policy clearly proves that it has been typed recently only for the purpose of this case. Even further, none of the LIC Officer was summoned to prove the Official records of the Insurance Company, to show that the second defendant was recorded as a nominee. The very paragraph inserted in the last page created doubt about the nominee itself. If really, she was included in the LIC policy in the year 1993 and she was continuously living with Manoharan. There should have been other documents to prove her residence in Kujiliamparai. There is no document whatsoever has been filed to prove 33/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 the same. From all these facts and for the above reasons, this Court is unable to believe Ex.B.8. Accordingly, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.
Point No.3 :
48. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Dr.Manoharan who is unmarried, met with an accident on 21.05.2000 and suffered injury on head and also fracture. Besides, he also fell in the bath room and become unconscious. At the relevant point of time, the second defendant was appointed as a maid to look after the said Manoharan from the year 2000. Taking advantage of the injuries and mental conditions, the second defendant has obtained a Will from Doctor Manoharan.
49.The second defendant admitting that Manoharan met with an accident, however, submitted that he has only suffered injury and fracture. She denied the injury on head and also the fall in the bath room. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that during such period, the second defendant has obtained a Will, when the mental status of the Doctor Manoharan was not good and obtained Ex.B.7 and with the help of the attesting witnesses. Ex.B.7, Will has been propounded by the 34/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 second defendant. It is to be noted that initial burden is on the propounder to prove the execution as well as the attestation, when the suspicion inherent in the Will, the burden is also on the propounder to dispel the suspicious circumstances. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Dr.Manoharan has suffered injuries and he had a fall, as a result of which, he has suffered head injury. Head injury alone is disputed by the second defendant, whereas, D.W.5 admitted that besides accidental injuries, Dr.Manoharan has also had a fall in the bath-room as discussed in the previous points. Therefore, the contention of the second defendant that Dr.Manoharan, never had a fall and sustained injury cannot be countenanced. However, the fact remains that on 21.05.2000, Dr.Manoharan met with an accident and sustained injury. Of-course, either side has not filed any medical history of Dr.Manoharan, with regard to the nature of the treatment and mental condition, etc.
50. Now the contention of the second defendant that on 21.06.2002, Dr.Manoharan has bequeathed the entire suit property by a registered Will, while he was in sound disposing state of mind. D.W.2 one of the attesting witness in Ex.B.7 was examined in the chief examination and in the affidavit, he has stated that on 21.06.2002 about 35/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 4.00 p.m in the presence of D.W.2 and another attesting witness, the testator signed the Will and both the witnesses have signed in the attesting witness place. Though the entire evidence proves the execution and attestation as required under law. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence makes it clear that the Will said to have been prepared on 21.06.2002, however, the same was presented for registration only on 26.06.2002. It is the specific evidence of D.W.2 that even during the registration, they signed as an identification witnesses. Though D.W.2 claims to be well aware of Dr.Manoharan and family, he has not even seen the brother and sister of the said Dr.Manoharan, for the last 26 years. D.W.2 was working as a Health Inspector at the relevant point of time. Another attesting witness is also working along with D.W.2. It is the specific case of D.W.2 that on 21.06.2002 a draft Will was prepared by documentary writer one Shanmugam and the Will has been read over to Manoharan and Dr.Manoharan signed in their presence. D.W.3 one of the documentary writer, he has also given evidence in respect of preparing the Will and attesting witness signing the Will. D.W.2 and D.W.3 evidence carefully seen, it reveals that the consistence stand of them that they have signed in only one document ie., Ex.B.7 Will on the particular date. They never signed any other document prepared and 36/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 executed by Dr.Manoharan. The evidence of D.W.3 further indicate that he has not only spoken about the Will, but also spoken about the properties and exercising the control over the properties by said Manoharan. It is to be noted that D.W.2 is not even in a position to know the brother and sister of the Dr.Manoharan and he did not know how fund has been mobilized for construction of the building.
51.Be that as it may, it is the specific stand of D.W.2 and D.W.3 that on the date of Ex.B.7, only one document was registered by Manoharan. Ex.B.7-Will, when carefully perused it reveals that though Will said to have been prepared on 21.06.2002 and executed by Dr.Manoharan and the same was presented for registration only on 26.06.2002. The Will has been prepared only on 21.06.2002. Though the Will has been presented before the Sub-Registrar Office, Kujiliambarai, the stamp papers have been purchased at Dindigul. It is also one of the serious doubt coming to the mind of this Court.
52.Apart from that, D.W.3 one Shanmugam, attesting witness said to have been signed in the documents as a attesting witness on 21.06.2002 and within a week, they have also claimed to be signed as 37/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 identification witnesses before the Registrar Office. Though the original documents have not been seriously confronted during Trial, this Court while dealing with the Will has to necessarily go through the documents, since the Will takes away the right of succession.
53. D.W.2 and D.W.3 claim to have attested Will on 21.06.2002, also identification witnesses on 26.06.2002. This Court entertains serious doubt over the very signature of one found in the Will as a attesting witnesses and as identification witnesses. The first witness signed as Munusamy as a attesting witness the word (K) in Tamil is differently signed in column meant for attesting witness. Similarly, the word (D rh kp) is totally different than the signature found in the place meant for identification witness on bare look of the two signature said to be belonging to the same person and signed within a week shows lot of difference. The curve in the signature in the attesting witness of D.W.2 is totally different, while signing as the identification witness. Similarly, the word (,uh) also differently signed in the place meant for identification witness. Following are the signatures of the same persons signed in Ex.B.7-Will at different times at the interval of one week. 38/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 On the date of alleged execution i.e., on 21.06.2002 One week later ie., on 21.06.2002
54.Similarly, the second witness said to be one Natrayan, his signature is also totally different from the time of attestation and on at the time of identification. The curve found in signature has not been found in the identification column. During identification, in initial also, there is lot of difference. These facts clearly creates a serious doubt about the attesting witnesses presence during the registration. Though, 39/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 this Court cannot assume the role of an expert to find the minute details in the signatures, on bare look of the signatures in the place meant for attestation and identification, there is lot of dis-similarities could be seen. Even an ordinary common man could find a lot of differences in those signature. This aspect creates a serious doubt about the presence of the attesting witness, while registering the Will. This doubt is further fortified by the admission of D.W.2 and D.W.3. Their consistence stand is that other than Ex.B.7 Will, no other document whatsoever was signed by them and executed by the testator namely, Dr.Manoharan. It is relevant to note that the Will was registered and the document shown as document No.19 and registered on 26.06.2002, on the same date, another document was registered by Dr.Manoharan. The above document was registered as Document No.18. That itself clearly shows that Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.28 cancellation of Will was presented on the same time. Though Ex.B.7, Will was prepared on 21.06.2002, but the Will clearly indicates that it was only presented on 26.06.2002 and on the same date, another Will has been cancelled by Dr.Manoharan. The recitals Ex.B.28 clearly shows that the said Manoharan said to have executed a Will in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property. It is to be noted that it is an admitted case of both sides that Manoharan met with an accident 40/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 in the year 2000. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has met with an accident on 21.05.2000. When the evidence of D.W.5, carefully seen, who is the contesting appellant, makes it very clear that Dr.Manoharan suffered injury and met with an accident and his cross examination further indicates that for the second time also, Dr.Manoharan fell down and sustained injury. When the evidence of D.W.5 shows that Dr.Manoharan suffered injury and same clearly probalised the plaintiff's case that not only by way of accident on 21.05.2000, second time he fell down in the bath room and suffered head injury and he was not in a good state of mind. Ex.A.28 further reveals that on 13.07.2000 that is on the date at the relevant point of time as per the evidence of D.W.5, Manoharan suffered injuries, the Will was registered in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property. The said Will was attested by a persons who are none other than D.W.2 who is one of the attesting witness in Ex.B.7 and one Natarayan, who is the second attesting witness in Ex.B.7 and similarly the same document writer, namely, D.W.3, was a scribe in the above Will and in Ex.A.28-Will.
55.From the documents Ex.B.7 and Ex.A.28 and the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3, this Court entertain a serious doubt about 41/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 the mental state of Dr.Manoharan, who said to have been suffered injury at the relevant point of time. Infact, the same has probablised the plaintiff's case that the said Manoharan was not in a position to take a rational decision at the relevant point of time. The D.W.2 and D.W.3 took consistent stand that they have never signed any other document executed by Manoharan, which is found to be false by Ex.A.28. Thereafter, their evidence lacks credibility. D.W.2 is not only attested the earlier Will, but also stood as identification witness. This also one of the suspicious circumstances, which has not been explained. When the Will is of the year 13.07.2000 already in existence in favour of first defendant bequeathing all the properties in favour of the second defendant, there was no reason as to why such Will has to be cancelled and new Will has to be registered, it is also one of the serious suspicious circumstances arises as to Ex.B.7. Further it is also to be noted that the defendant has projected in the written statement as if Ex.B.7 alone is the first and last Will of the testator Dr.Manoharan. The execution of the Will dated 13.07.2000 and its cancellation on 27.06.2002, was totally suppressed in their pleadings. This also makes their stand is not true and the Will is not genuinely executed. In fact, it probablise the plaintiff's case that the testator was not in a sound state of mind at the relevant time 42/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 of executing the Will.
56. Further the evidence of D.W.1 and 11th defendant/DW5, when carefully scrutinized, there is no materials available to show that the relationship between the plaintiff and the said Manoharan and other defendants so strained to exclude them from the properties. There was no reason whatsoever assigned in the Will for excluding the brother and sister of the said Manoharan and preferring the cousin sister. In the absence of any valid reason to exclude them when the relationship between the parties are cordial, is also one of the circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the Will. Further when the testator met with an accident and suffered serious injuries at the relevant point of time, the same attesting witness signed as a attesting witness on 13.07.2000 itself. That itself clearly indicates that the second defendant was keen somehow or other for grabbing the properties. Though the evidence as to the nature of death of the second defendant has not been specifically adduced as discussed above the cross examination of D.W.5 makes it clear that she was murdered. Thereafter, another Will was projected by her brother said to have been obtained from his mother / third defendant. All the facts clearly indicates that the Will is shrouded with serious 43/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 suspicious circumstances pointed above. Therefore, merely Will was registered, its genuinity cannot be presumed. Accordingly, the Court disbelieve the Will Ex.B.7 dated 21.06.2002. Accordingly, this point is answered.
Point No.4
57. The 11th defendant claimed to be the appellant herein, by virtue of Will executed by the third defendant, who is none other than the mother of 2nd defendant, she was impleaded after the death of the second defendant. The third defendant also died during the pendency of the suit. She was brought on record in the year 2008, as per order in I.A.No.2 of 2008, dated 14.10.2008. The said third defendant died on 01.06.2008 and her legal heirs were brought on record as Defendants 4 to
11. As per the orders passed in I.A.No.52 of 2008 and the same was allowed on 28.10.2009. Now the 11th defendant propounded the said Will said to have been executed on 01.11.2007, it is to be noted that the third defendant was brought on record only on 14.10.2008. Much prior the third defendant was brought on record, the Will Ex.B.46 dated 01.10.2007 said to have been executed by the third defendant, who is the Class-I legal heir of the second defendant, as a mother of the second 44/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 defendant.
58. It is the contention of the third defendant that while the third defendant was in a sound disposing state of mind had executed the Will in favour of the 11th defendant. On a perusal of the Will, dated 01.11.2007, it makes it very clear that the testatrix is aged about 92 years at the time, she is a rustic illiterate. She appears to have put her thumb impression and registered a Will in favour of the 11th defendant. The 11th defendant evidence indicate that he is only supplying the water cane and others. The entire reading of the evidence of D.W.5 makes it clear that the other legal heirs/the defendants 4 to 10 are also the Class-I legal heirs of the third defendant, whereas, the Will except stating that others were well off they are excluded. There is no other factor whatsoever mentioned in the Will for disinheriting them. Further it is to be noted that the evidence of D.W.5/ 11th defendant shows that he was residing with his mother and that itself clearly indicate that his 92 years aged mother who is a rustic illiterate lady, she was under the apparent control by the 11th defendant. In fact, the 11th defendant was in dominant position to dominate Will of his mother and he was in active confidence.
45/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
59. The evidence of D.W.5 further indicates that he was actively participated in preparing the Will. He was present during the execution of the Will and Rs.100/- stamp papers were also purchased in his name. The Will Ex.B.7 typed in stamp papers and each paper contains Rs.10/- stamp papers purchased by the 11th defendant. The very photograph and appearance of the third defendant and the nature of the thumb impression put up by her makes it clear that she was not in a position to take a rational decision. Her son was in apparent control, who was in a dominant position, has obtained the Will. His further evidence indicates that only the third defendant has given instruction to the document writer to write a Will. This evidence is highly unbelievable and improbable. Before the third defendant was brought on record as defendant in the suit, the Will was prepared. The third defendant giving a minute details about the properties, how the properties devolved on her, is highly improbable. Yet another fact also cannot be lost sight of by this Court. One of the attesting witness is none other than the wife of the 11th defendant namely, the appellant herein. The other attesting witness is said to be owner of auto, who is having nexus with them, above makes it clear that the husband and wife has taken a active role in obtaining a 46/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 Will from the third defendant. Evidence of D.W.5, shows that to write a Will by the document writer, except ration card no other documents were given to the document writer. The same has been admitted by his wife who is also examined as one of the attesting witness. She has also admitted that no other document other than ration card has been given to the document writer to write a Will. When the testatrix not even brought on record as a defendant and without any document, she giving details as to the nature of the property and Will said to have been executed by Dr.Manoharan, is highly improbable. It is also one of the serious circumstances, which creates doubt about the genuineness of the Will. It is also well settled that person in active confidence and in a position to dominate the Will of other, has to prove the good faith of transaction. There was no acceptable reason to disinheriting other legal heirs namely, the defendants 4 to 10. The Will has been prepared in the presence of beneficiary and his wife. The Will prepared by the active role of the beneficiary and his wife D.W.6. These facts, creates a serious doubt about Ex.B.46-Will.
60. It is relevant to note that on the date of Will, the 11th defendant has also said to have obtained power of attorney from his 47/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 mother. This has been admitted by D.W.5 in his cross examination. The same day, power of attorney was also obtained from his mother. This fact clearly indicates that the only intention of the appellant herein is to knock out the property somehow or other. Immediately, based on the Will, the 11th defendant has executed an agreement for sale in favour of one Rajamanickam under Ex.A.35 and received an advance amount of Rs.33,00,000/- and agreed to sell the property for Rs.76,00,000/-. This itself shows that Ex.A.46 has been created only to grab the properties. It is also relevant to note that the second defendant during trial has given an undertaking before the Court of law that no alienation or encumbrance would be created in respect of the suit properties. The 11th defendant claiming right through the second defendant and his mother contrary to the undertaking given by the second defendant created encumbrance under Ex.A.35. This fact creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the Will and on suspicion, is inherent in the Will Ex.B.46. The appellant has not dispelled the suspicious circumstances as to the Will. Attesting witness his wife was examined as D.W.6, feign ignorance to the power of attorney said to have been obtained from the aged mother of the 11th defendant. All these facts creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the Will.
48/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012
61. Accordingly, in whole, the two Wills propounded by the defendants not satisfied the conscious of this Court. Over all analysis of the factual matrix and the documents both the Will propounded by the second and 11th defendant have not satisfied the conscience of this Court to uphold the Wills, though they have been registered. Accordingly, these points are answered.
62. Though the several documents have been filed by both sides and the document adduced by both sides, makes it very clear that the second defendant tried to take control over the properties. Most of the exhibits filed is with regard to the change of name in revenue and municipal records etc., and those documents is in no way relevant to decide the validity of the Will etc.
63. From the over all appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the view that there was an attempt only to grab the properties of Dr.Manoharan, who died as a bachelor. Accordingly this point is answered.
49/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 Point No.5
64.In view of the discussion held above, the plaintiff's legal heirs, namely, defendants 12 to 14, who are the Class-II legal heirs, were entitled to succeed the properties which have been left by the deceased Manoharan. Accordingly, all the points are answered against the appellant / 11th defendant.
65. Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
50/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
51/52 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
RM Pre-delivery Judgment in A.S.(MD)No.86 of 2012 09.02.2021 52/52 http://www.judis.nic.in