Madras High Court
D.Venkatraman(Deceased) vs Mrs.D.G.Premalatha @ on 4 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 851 (MAD.), AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 375
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
T.O.S.No.20 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on 10.02.2020
Judgment pronounced on 04.03.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
T.O.S. No.20 of 2015
1.D.Venkatraman(Deceased)
2.Janakiram D.V.
3.Sathyanarayana Ram D.V.
4.Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi
(4th Plaintiff brought on record as L.R. of
the deceased 1st Plaintiff as per order
dated 15.11.2016 in A.No.3287 of 2016) ... Plaintiffs
vs
1.Mrs.D.G.Premalatha @
C.N.Rajalakshmi
2.Mrs.C.V.Gangabai
3.Mrs.Lilly Kumari ... Defendants
Prayer: Testamentary Original Suit filed under Sections 232 and 276 of
the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Order XXV Rule 5 of Original Side
Rules, to issue Letters of Administration with the Will dated 06.03.1989
annexed and marked with the letter 'A' may be granted for them as the
legatees under the Will of the said deceased to have effect through out
the state of Tamil Nadu.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1 of 23
T.O.S.No.20 of 2015
For Plaintiffs : Mr.M.Shanmugavelu
Mr.S.Iyappan
For Defendants : Mr.N.P.Jayakumar
Mr.P.V.Pachaiyappan
JUDGMENT
This testamentary original suit is filed by the son and two grand sons of the testator for the grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed in respect of the last Will and Testament dated 06.03.1989 of the late D.Govardhana Ram Naidu, which was registered before the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, on 08.03.1989 as Document No.38 of 1989 in Book 3. The testator died on 01.08.1992 and O.P.No.412 of 2012 was filed on 13.12.2012. The Defendants in the suit are the three daughters of the testator and they are contesting the Will. In order to prove the Will, evidence was adduced by the Plaintiffs by examining the third Plaintiff as P.W.1. Exs.P1-P10 and D1-D2 (in cross- examination) were exhibited through him. The wife of one of the attesting witnesses was examined as P.W.2 and the son of the other attesting witness was examined as P.W.3. Each of these witnesses were cross- examined by the learned counsel for the Defendants. As regards the Defendants, evidence was adduced by examining the third Defendant as D.W.1. Exs.D3-D4 were exhibited through her and she was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015
2. I heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the Defendants.
3. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Will was executed by the deceased first Plaintiff's father, the late D.Govardhana Ram Naidu, on 06.03.1989. He ordinarily resided at No.17, First Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600
024. The said Will was attested by two attesting witnesses, namely, K.L.Palaniswamy and S.Ranganathan. Under the registered Will, the immovable property of the testator at Plot No.9, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024 was bequeathed by way of a life estate to the first Plaintiff and by way of an absolute estate to the second and third Plaintiffs. The testator died on 01.08.1992. O.P. No.412 of 2012 for the grant of letters of administration was filed on 13.12.2012. As on the date of filing of the O.P., both the attesting witnesses were dead. Consequently, the first attesting witness's son was examined as P.W.3 and the second attesting witness's wife was examined as P.W.2. The learned counsel submitted that on account of the fact that the Will is a registered Will, there is a presumption that the Will was duly executed and registered. In this connection, he referred to a judgment of this Court in V.Lakshminarayanan v. S.V.Balasubramanian, (2009) 1 MLJ 966, http://www.judis.nic.in 3 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 wherein, at paragraphs 12 and 23, this Court referred to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 (the Succession Act) and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872(the Evidence Act). After referring to the aforesaid Sections, the Court held that the execution of a Will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence. Further, the Court held that a registered Will is entitled to the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act and that the act of the Registrar is an official act and, therefore, there is a presumption that it was made regularly and that the signatory to the document was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of signing the document and affixing the thumb impression, though the Sub Registrar could not identify the testator. In addition, the Court held that even in case of death of attesting witnesses, the genuineness of a Will can be proved by way of available oral and documentary evidence, if such evidence is legally acceptable. With regard to the delay in filing the Petition, he also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.Vatsala v. K.S.Mohan & others (Vatsala), 2016–1–L.W. 577, wherein the Division Bench held, inter alia, at paragraph 13, “Delay by itself cannot be a ground for refusing the grant of probate otherwise when there is proof of execution of the Will by acceptable and convincing oral and documentary evidence. In the absence of any specific period of limitation, Order XXV Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules only mandates the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 propounder to make specific averments explaining the reasons for the delay so caused.” In addition, at paragraph 25, the Division Bench held as under:
“25. While deciding Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, besides making a reference to a decision of the Bombay High Court's case in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani [AIR 1983 Bom. 268], also approved the principles laid down in paragraph 16 therein. For easy understanding, the same is reproduced hereunder:-
“16. Rejecting Dalapatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions thus:
(a) Under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;
(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased is unwarranted;
(c) such an application is for the Court’s permission to perform a legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any times after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed;
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015
(d) the right to apply accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years from the date of the deceased’s death;
(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased’s death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion;
(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates.' The Hon'ble Apex Court also opined that conclusion 'c' is the correct position of law.
Significantly, the reasoning of this Court though was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conclusion is not in agreement with the same.” He also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Corra Vedachalam Chetty v. G.Janakiraman (Vedachalam Chetty), Judgment dated 10.04.2001, wherein the Division Bench held, at paragraphs 25 and 26 that the testamentary Court is a Court of conscience and not a Court of suspicion. It was further held that the object of testamentary proceedings is not to render the testamentary document ineffective but to make it effective and render the terms of the Will operational. While the Court is required to be cautious especially while http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 dealing with the evidence with regard to the execution and attestation of the Will or disposing state of mind of the testator, the Court should not be unduly influenced by the imaginary suspicions of unscrupulous caveators who benefit by rendering the Will ineffective.
4. In response and to the contrary, the learned counsel for the Defendants made the following submissions. The first submission was that there is an inordinate delay of about 20 years in filing the petition. The testator died on 01.08.1992, whereas the O.P. was filed on 13.12.2012. There is no explanation either in the Petition or in the proof affidavit with regard to the reasons for such inordinate delay. His second submission was that the contention that the petition was filed after the life time of the testator's son is untenable. The testator's son was joined as the first Plaintiff and even to enjoy a life interest in the property bequeathed under the Will, it is necessary to institute testamentary proceedings. The next contention is that the Will is fabricated. In support of this submission, the learned counsel referred to the Will and pointed out as to how there is underlining below the signature and under the name Govardhanan on the first page of the Will. By contrast, there is no underlining beneath the signature on the second page of the Will. The signature of the testator before the Joint Sub Registrar contains underlining beneath the signature but the underlining is not beneath Govardhanan but beneath Ram Naidu. http://www.judis.nic.in 7 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 Thus, he pointed out that there is clear variation as between the three alleged signatures of the testator on the Will. The Will discloses that the document was written by N.Balakrishnan but the said N.Balakrishnan was not examined. With regard to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, he referred to the fact that no provision is made in the Will for the three daughters of the testator except by stating that the testator's son should give each daughter Rs.5,000/- when he retires from his job. The disposition under the Will is unnatural not only because no provision is made for the three daughters but also because provision is made by way of life interest for the daughter-in-law.
5. The learned counsel, next, referred to Ex.P9 which is the alleged complaint lodged by the testator to the Inspector of Police, R-2 Police Station, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024, with regard to the alleged harassment of the testator by the son-in-law, Mr.K.V.Madhavan, and the second daughter's son, C.S.Shyam Sunder. The said document is dated 26.09.1990. The same document was also handed over to the learned counsel for the Defendants by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. By comparing the two versions of the complaint letter dated 26.09.1990, which were marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.D2, respectively, the learned counsel pointed out that in the complaint letter marked as Ex.P9 the date is written as 26/9/90, whereas in Ex.D2 the date is written as http://www.judis.nic.in 8 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 26-9-1990. According to the learned counsel, this clearly establishes that the complaint letter is fabricated. He also pointed out that the signature of the testator does not contain any underlining beneath the signature in Ex.P9. Moreover, he pointed out that there is significant variation in the signature as between Exs.P9 and D2. He next referred to Ex.P10, which is the alleged CSR registered at R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station. The complaint letter alleges that K.V.Madhavan and C.S.Shyam Sunder were harassing the testator whereas the CSR records that the complaint is against Ganga and Lilly. Once again, the signature is different and he has allegedly signed as D.Govardhanan and not as D.Govardhanan Ram Naidu.
6. He next referred to the cross examination of P.W.1. By referring to the cross examination on 14.07.2017, he pointed out that P.W.1 admitted that the statement in the proof affidavit that Madhavan and Shyam Sunder threatened the testator and harassed him to write the Will in their names was not made in O.P.No.412 of 2012. In this connection, he also pointed out that it was not stated in the petition that the testator called the Defendants to his house on 26.09.1990 and informed them that he would give Rs.5,000/- to each of them as per the Will and that the Defendants threatened him and claimed their share in the property and that the testator consequently, gave the police http://www.judis.nic.in 9 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 complaint. Therefore, he contended that no credibility or weight should be attached to the statements to this effect in the proof affidavit and deposition of P.W.1. He also pointed out that as to how P.W.1 admitted that after the death of the testator, name transfer was effected in the corporation records and the records of Metro Water by substituting the testator's name with that of D.Venkatraman, D.V.Shyamala, D.V.Sathya Narayana Ram and D.V.Janaki Ram. By referring to the cross examination on 11.01.2018, he pointed out that P.W.1 admitted that name transfer was effected in the property tax assessment in the names of the three Plaintiffs by showing Ex.P1 Will. By referring to the cross examination of P.W.1 on 01.02.2018, at Page 16, he pointed out that P.W.1 admitted that he is not personally aware of the execution of Ex.P1 Will.
7. With reference to the evidence of P.W.2, he pointed out that P.W.2 identified the signature of the second attesting witness, who was her husband Ranganathan, but admitted that she does not know anything about the Ex.P1 Will, including when and where her husband attested the said Will as a witness. With regard to the deposition of P.W.3, he pointed out that P.W.3 did not depose with regard to the testator's signature but only in respect of the signature of his father who was the first attesting witness. With reference to the evidence of D.W.1, he pointed out that D.W.1 stated that he did not attend the meeting http://www.judis.nic.in 10 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 conducted by Mr.M.Radhakrishnan and only the first Defendant attended the said meeting.
8. With regard to the delay in filing the O.P., he referred to Order XXV Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules and pointed out that it is necessary to explain the delay. In this case, there is no explanation for the delay either in the petition or in the proof affidavit. In support of the submission, he referred to and relied upon the judgment in Gurdial Kaur and Others v. Kartar Kaur and others (Gurdial Kaur)(1998) 4 SCC
384. By specifically referring to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment, he pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the registration of a Will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion and that some of the natural heirs were disinherited by the Will without any reason for such action. He also referred to the judgment in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mridula Jyoti Rao and others, 2007 (2) CTC 172, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 31,33 and 34 that the Will should be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if an attesting witness is alive. It was further held in paragraph 33 as under with regard to the circumstances that are considered suspicious:
“33. There are several circumstances which would have been held to be described by this Court as suspicious circumstances:
(i) When a doubt is created in regard to the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the Will;
(ii) When the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances;
(iii) Where propounder himself takes prominent part in the execution of Will which confers on him substantial benefit.” By relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel concluded his submissions by pointing out that there are a number of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. The daughters of the testator were disinherited. The alleged provision for the daughters is in the form of the payment of a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of them by the first Plaintiff and not by the testator and the petition for the grant of letters of administration was filed about 20 years after the testator's death with no explanation either in the petition or in the proof affidavit for such delay. In addition, there are significant variations in the signature of the testator on the different pages of the Will and also by comparing the Will with Exs.P9 and D2. For all these reasons, he submitted that the testamentary suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. By way of rejoinder submissions, the learned counsel for http://www.judis.nic.in 12 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 the Plaintiffs submitted that the variation in the signature of the testator is minor and age related. With regard to the contention that P.W.3 is not the son of the first attesting witness, he pointed out that the I.D. card was produced so as to prove that P.W.3 is indeed the son of the attesting witness. He concluded his submissions by pointing out that no steps were taken by any of the Defendants to make a claim in respect of the property bequeathed under the Will until the Plaintiffs filed the O.P. for grant of letters of administration. According to the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this establishes that the Defendants were aware about the existence of the Will and the entitlement of the Plaintiffs under the Will.
10. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and examined the records. Upon consideration of the pleadings and draft issues, this Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the alleged Will dated 06.03.1989 executed by D.Govardhana Ram Naidu is true and valid?
(ii) Whether the delay in filing the probate is properly explained?
(iii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for letters of administration?
(iv) To what other reliefs, the Plaintiffs are entitled?
11. I propose to deal with Issue No.2 before considering the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 other issues.
Issue No.II The petition should be examined to ascertain whether any explanation has been provided with regard to delay. The petition is dated 20.12.2011. On perusal of the petition, I find that there is no explanation at all in the petition with regard to the delay in filing the petition. In this connection, it may be noted that the testator died on 01.08.1992 whereas the petition was filed more than 19 years later on 20.12.2011. The next document to be examined, in this regard, is the proof affidavit of P.W.1. The third Plaintiff, namely, D.V.Sathyanarayan Ram, was examined as P.W.1. He filed a proof affidavit dated 08.02.2017. In the proof affidavit, at paragraph 10, P.W.1 stated that all the Defendants attended a meeting, on 18.01.2010, at the house of a person called Mr. Radhakrishnan, who is a retired judicial officer and friend of the testator at No.24, Thirumalai Pillai Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. He also stated that this meeting is referred to in the written statement of the Defendants. At the said meeting, the first Plaintiff and father of P.W.1 is stated to have informed the Defendants about the contents of the Will of the testator. It is further stated therein that the first Plaintiff requested the Defendants to accept Rs.5,000/- each but the first Defendant scolded http://www.judis.nic.in 14 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 the first Plaintiff and left the house saying that she would not accept the sum of Rs.5,000/-. In those circumstances, it is stated therein that Mr.Radhakrishnan advised the Plaintiffs' father to take appropriate steps to probate the Will. This is the only explanation with regard to the delay in filing O.P.No.412 of 2012. As stated earlier, the O.P. was filed on 20.12.2011 and the first Plaintiff, namely, P.W.1's father signed the said O.P. as the first Petitioner therein. However, there is no reference in the Petition to the alleged meeting on 18.01.2010 at the house of Mr.Radhakrishnan and to the fact that the contents of the Will were explained on that date to the Defendants or to the fact that Mr.Radhakrishnan advised the first Plaintiff to file the testamentary proceedings. It may be noted that Mr.Radhakrishnan was also not examined as a witness by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the evidence on record is in the form of the evidence of P.W.1, who stated that he attended the said meeting. In the course of the cross-examination of the third Plaintiff/D.W.1, she stated that she did not attend the said meeting on 18.01.2010. Nonetheless, she stated that the first Defendant attended the meeting but denied that a Will was produced and stated that some piece of paper was produced at the said meeting as informed by her sister, the first Defendant. As narrated above, I find that the meeting preceded the filing of the petition in December 2011 and, therefore, should have been referred to therein. In addition, the Plaintiffs could http://www.judis.nic.in 15 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 have examined Mr.Radhakrishnan, whereas this was not done. The period of delay is about 20 years. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no limitation period, as held in Vatsala, in these facts and circumstances, I conclude that the delay has not been properly explained and that the requirements of Order XXV Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules were not satisfied by the Plaintiffs.
12. I now propose to deal with Issue No.1 and 3 jointly. Issue No.I & III In order to decide whether the alleged Will dated 06.03.1989 is true and valid, the place to begin is Ex.P1, namely, the Will. This document discloses that it is a registered Will, which was registered at the Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam, on 18.03.1989 as Document No.38 in Book 3. Although it is a registered Will, as held in Gurdial Kaur and other cases, such registration is per se not conclusive proof of execution and attestation and the document should be examined. The Will contains the signature of the testator on pages 1 and 2 thereof and also overleaf Page 1 in the Joint Sub Registrar's Office. When the three signatures of the testator are compared, it is clear that the signature on page 1 contains underlining beneath the word Govardhanan, whereas the signature on page 2 does not contain any underlining beneath the signature. The registration page contains underlining http://www.judis.nic.in 16 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 beneath the word Ram Naidu but not beneath the word Govardhanan. The said Will was purportedly executed when the testator was 81 years old and was not in particularly good health as stated in the Will. Therefore, it has to be seen whether there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. For these purposes, the nature of disposition should be examined. A life interest is created under the Will in favour of the testator's son and daughter-in-law and an absolute estate is created in favour of the two grand sons of the testator, who are the son's children. Thus, it appears that the entire bequest is in favour of the son and his family. In effect, the daughters were disinherited under the Will. Nevertheless, the Will does make a reference to the daughters but the provision for the daughters is in the form of cash payment of Rs.5,000/- each to be provided by the testator's son at the time of his retirement. In other words, it is not a disposition from and out of the testator's estate. The Will was prepared and written by a document writer called N.Balakrishnan. The said N.Balakrishnan was not examined as a witness. The attesting witnesses are stated to be dead as on the date of the petition and, therefore, they were not examined. The Plaintiffs did not file an application to subpoena the officials from the office of the Joint Registrar, Kodambakkam.
13. By examining the Will, I find that there are suspicions http://www.judis.nic.in 17 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 circumstances such as the age and health of the testator, the discrepancies in the signature and the failure to examine the attesting witnesses and the document writer. As stated above, none of the officials of the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam were examined. Therefore, it is also necessary to examine the other evidence on record in this case especially the documents that allegedly contain the signature of the testator. The police complaint that was purportedly lodged by the testator was marked as Ex.P9. The same document was also handed over by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs to the learned counsel for the Defendants and was marked as Ex.D2. When Ex.P9 and Ex.D2 are compared, it is clear that there is considerable variation in the signature of the testator. The manner in which the date is written is also completely different in as much as the date is written as 26/9/90 in Ex.P9, whereas it is written as 26-09-1990 in Ex.D2. Therefore, I conclude that Ex.P9 and Ex.D2 lack credibility and cannot be relied upon. With regard to the evidence of P.W.1, he admitted during the course of cross-examination, on 14.07.2017, that the alleged harassment of the testator by Madhavan and Shyam Sunder is not mentioned in O.P.No.412 of 2012. Similarly, the alleged meeting on 26.09.1990 at the house of the testator was admittedly not mentioned in the O.P. In addition, it is admitted that Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 were not filed along with O.P. No.412 of 2012. P.W.1 also admitted that the name transfer in the property tax assessment was http://www.judis.nic.in 18 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 made by showing the Will and that this was done in the year 1993. P.W.1 further admitted that the Defendants used to visit the testator during his life time but other than the alleged meeting on 26.09.1990, which is denied by the Defendants, there is no indication that the Defendants were informed about the Will. As regards the evidence of P.W.2, during her cross examination on 06.02.2018, P.W.2 identified the signature of her husband, namely, Ranganathan, who was one of the attesting witnesses. However, she was unable to testify with regard to when and where her husband attested Ex.P1. P.W.3 deposed with regard to the signature of the first attesting witness, namely, K.L.Palaniswamy. He also admitted that he is not personally aware as to when and where Ex.P1 Will was executed.
14. From the above, I find that there is no evidence with regard to the signature of the testator on the Will. As stated earlier, the only other documents on record which contain the signature of the testator are Ex.P9 and Ex.D2. On examining the said documents, I concluded that they appear to be fabricated and cannot be relied upon. On considering the totality of evidence, the following infirmities or suspicious circumstances are discernible:
(i) The Plaintiffs failed to explain the inordinate delay of almost 20 years in filing the O.P.
(ii) There are variations in the signature of the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 testator on the Will.
(iii) Neither of the attesting witnesses were examined.
(iv)The document writer was not examined.
(v) The officials of the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam were not examined.
(vi) The disposition is unnatural in as much as there is no provision for the three daughters from the testator. There is not even a reference to expenses incurred towards either the marriage of the daughters or the provision of jewellery to the daughters.
(vii) The alleged meeting at the residence of the testator on 26.09.1990 is not mentioned in the O.P. but is mentioned in the proof affidavit of P.W.1.
(viii) The alleged police complaint dated 26.09.1990 is a fabricated document for the reasons set out above.
(ix) Mr.Radhakrishnan was not examined in respect of the meeting on 18.01.2010 at his residence, wherein the Will was allegedly shown to the Defendants.
(x) The Testator was 81 years old at the time of execution of the Will and could have been unduly influenced or coerced by the Plaintiffs who lived with http://www.judis.nic.in 20 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 him at the time of execution of the Will.
For all these reasons, I conclude that the Will was not proved.
15. Issue No.IV In view of the conclusion that the Will was not proved, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to letters of administration and the parties are not entitled to any other relief.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, I conclude that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Will as per law. Therefore, the testamentary suit is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
.03.2020 Plaintiffs' witnesses:
1.Mr.Sathya Narayana Ram : P.W.1
2.Mrs.R.Vijayalakshmi : P.W.2
3.Mr.P.Manirajan : P.W.3 Defendants' witnesses:
http://www.judis.nic.in 21 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015
1.Lilly Kumari : D.W.1 Documents exhibited by Plaintiffs: Sl.No Exhibits Date Particulars of Documents
1. Ex.P1 03.06.1989 Original Registered Will executed by D.Govardhana Ram Naidu.
2. Ex.P2 08.08.2011 Photocopy of Death Certificate of D.Goverdhana Ram Naidu.
3. Ex.P3 14.03.2011 Photocopy of Death Certificate of D.V.Shyamala
4. Ex.P4 10.01.2015 Photocopy of Death Certificate of D.Venkatraman
5. Ex.P5 04.11.2013 Legal heir certificate of late D.Venkatraman
6. Ex.P6 23.12.2011 The Affidavit of Assets
7. Ex.P7 18.10.2012 Paper publication in English Daily
8. Ex.P8 11.10.2012 Paper publication in Tamil Daily
9. Ex.P9 26.09.1990 Police complaint lodged by Govardhana Ram Naidu
10. Ex.P10 26.09.1990 CSR No.1011/L8/22/90 issued by R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station.
11. Ex.P11 26.02.2010 Photocopy of Death Certificate of S.Ranganathan
12. Ex.P12 03.06.1999 Death Certificate of K.L.Palanisamy Pillai
13. Ex.P13 - Author card in the name of P.Manirajan Documents exhibited by Defendants:
Sl.No. Exhibits Date Particulars of Documents
1. Ex.D1 17.04.2017 Letter regarding furnish the copy of documents
2. Ex.D2 26.09.1990 Photocopy of Police complaint lodged by Govardhana Ram Naidu
3. Ex.D3 - Paper publication
4. Ex.D4 26.02.2010 Certified copy of the letter http://www.judis.nic.in 22 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 04.03.2020 Speaking order Index: Yes Internet: Yes rrg SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rrg Pre-Delivery Judgment in T.O.S. No.20 of 2015 http://www.judis.nic.in 23 of 23 T.O.S.No.20 of 2015 04.03.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 24 of 23