Madras High Court
V.Latha vs C.R.Sheela on 4 September, 2019
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.07.2019
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 04 .09.2019
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
1.V.Latha
2.V.Praveen Kumar
3.Ve.Jaggannadhan
4.B.Jamua Hari Krishna Kumar
5.Sampath Himashankar
... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.C.R.Sheela
2.C.R.Shoba
3.C.C.Anand @ C.C.Karunanidhi
... Defendants
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession
Act (XXXIX of 1925) and Order XXV Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules for grant
of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the petitioners.
Against the petition a caveat was filed by the caveators, as per order of this
Court dated 12.09.2016, the Original Petition No.333 of 2015 was converted
into Testamentary Original Suit No.51 of 2016.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/27
T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.Madanagopal
For Defendants : Mr.S.Namasivayam
JUDGMENT
The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:-
The plaintiffs seek Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed in respect of the Will dated 19.11.1986 of late C.Madanasundari who died on 23rd November 2013.
2. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased had bequeathed her properties to R.Venugopal, Jamuna Hari Krishnakumar and Mrs.Sampath Himashankar. R.Venugopal had died leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 being his wife and sons as his legal representatives. It is also claimed that the deceased C.Madanasundari had adopted all the three of them they being her sister's children. It is also claimed that the original Will could not be traced and a certified copy of the Will that was obtained on 11.06.2014 was filed along with the petition seeking Letters of Administration.
3. It is also stated that one Inder Mohan S/o. C.Karunanidhi Naidu was appointed as Executor of the Will. The said Inder Mohan died during February 1990. The original Will was in possession of late C.Madanasundari. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 After the death of C.Madanasundari, the plaintiffs made a search in the house and found that the original Will was missing. Therefore, they had come forward with the Original Petition in O.P.No.333 of 2015 seeking grant of Letters of Administration by producing a certified copy of the Will.
4. The application for grant was opposed by the defendants who had filed a caveat. Hence, the Original Petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit and was numbered as above.
5. Upon conversion as Testamentary Original Suit, the 3rd defendant alone filed a written statement contending that the claim of the plaintiffs that they are adopted children is incorrect and that the document projected as the last Will and Testament of late C.Madanasundari is not the authentic Will of the deceased. It is also claimed that it is highly improbable that the Will dated 19.11.1986 would be the last Will of the Testator who died eventually in the year 2013. The non-production of the original Will was also taken as a ground for disbelieving the Will.
6. It is the further claim of the 3rd defendant that as late as on 15th April 2014 there was a meeting of all the legal heirs of C.Madanasundari in order to determine the shares that each one of them would be entitled to in http://www.judis.nic.in 3/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 the estate. According to the 3rd defendant, the very fact that the plaintiffs have participated in the said meeting would show that the Will is not true and genuine. The non-impleading of the defendants in the Original Petition was also cited as a ground for rejection of the claim for Letters of Administration.
7. Upon the above pleadings, the following issues are framed in the suit:
1. Whether the Will dated 20.11.1986 registered as Doc.No.76/1986 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Purasaiwalkam is true and valid?
2. Whether the non-production of original Will by the plaintiffs would affect the validity of the Will?
3. Whether the Testator was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will?
4. Whether the original Will is in the custody of the 3rd defendant?
5. Whether the Court can draw adverse inference against the 3rd defendant for non-
production of the original Will?
6. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
8. At trial, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 4th plaintiff was examined as PW2. Two other witnesses were examined as PW3 and PW4. The 3rd defendant was examined as DW1. While Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked on the side of the 3rd defendant.
On the issues:-
9. Since all the issues are interconnected and they involve a common question relating to the truth and validity of the Will dated 19.11.1986, these issues are taken up together for disposal.
10. The Testator is the sister of the mother of the legatees viz., R.Venugopal, V.Jamuna Hari Krishna Kumar and Mrs.Sampath Himashankar. It is stated that R.Venugopal died leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 being his wife and children as his legal representatives. The Will is dated 19.11.1986 and it is a registered instrument. The same was attested by two witnesses. The first witness is Dr.Daniel and the second witness is Mr.T.Ramakrishnan, retired Official Assignee. The Testator died on 23.11.2013 nearly after 27 years from the date of execution of the Will. The defendants are class-II heirs of the deceased C.Madanasundari. The http://www.judis.nic.in 5/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 property that was bequeathed under the Will was acquired by C.Madanasundari in the year 1951 and since she had no issues it is claimed that she had adopted the said Venugopal and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 as her children and they were living together in the property subject matter of the Will. It is in evidence that the 1st plaintiff V.Latha W/o. R.Venugopal along with her children were residing in the property subject matter of the Will even when she deposed in court.
11. It is also claimed that it was late C.Madanasundari who got the plaintiffs 4 and 5 married and they were living with their respective husbands. As per the Will, the said C.Madanasundari had bequeathed 1/3rd of the property to her adopted son R.Venugopal to be enjoyed by him absolutely on a condition that he gets married. It also provides that if R.Venugopal does not get married the legacy will be taken by the 5th plaintiff Mrs.Sampath Himashankar after the lifetime of R.Venugopal.
12. The two daughters viz., plaintiffs 4 and 5 were each given 1/3rd share in the property situate at No.23, Kellys Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10. All movables were also bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs. After the death of the Testator on 23.11.2013, the plaintiffs have come forward with the Original Petition in O.P.No.333 of 2016 seeking grant of Letters of http://www.judis.nic.in 6/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 Administration with a copy of the Will annexed. The same was originally sought to be opposed by three defendants who are none other than the children of other sisters of C.Madanasundari. They claim that they being the Class - II heirs of C.Madanasundari, they would be entitled to inherit her property in the absence of the Will. Therefore, they are necessary parties.
13. However, the defendants 1 and 2 did not file written statement and were set exparte. The 3rd defendant alone filed a written statement and contested the suit. The 3rd defendant happens to be the son of late C.D.Chellappa, the youngest brother of C.Madanasundari. It is also claimed that the deceased had three sisters and four brothers. The 3 rd defendant is the son of the youngest brother of the deceased while the plaintiffs are the children and grandchildren of the sister of the deceased.
14. Apart from denying the Will, the 3rd defendant also sought to deny the adoption that is said to have been taken place. The 3rd defendant would also contend that all the legal heirs had met after the death of C.Madanasundari on 15th April 2014 and had agreed that the tenants should be directed to pay the rents to Mr.P.Kasthuri Raj a common friend. Relying upon the above letters dated 15th April 2014, the defendant would contend that the plaintiffs who were aware of the existence of the Will on that day http://www.judis.nic.in 7/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 would not have participated in the meetings that were held on 15th April 2014 and on 21st May 2014.
15. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would however contend that the letter dated 21.05.2014 cannot be true since it has been attested by notary even as early as on 05.04.2014. Therefore, according to the counsel for the plaintiffs, the letter dated 21st May 2014 cannot be true and valid. As regards the letter dated 15th April 2014, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the letter was written only as an interim arrangement till such time the steps are taken for obtaining Letters of Administration. These letters, according to the counsel for the plaintiffs, even assuming them to be true will not confer any right over the property or cannot be construed to show that the Will is not true and valid.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant would however vehemently contend that the plaintiffs have not proved the Will as required under law. Though Mr.T.Ramakrishnan, one of the attesting witnesses was shown to be alive he was not examined and no persons connected with the attesting witnesses were examined to show that the signatures of the attesting witnesses is in their handwriting. http://www.judis.nic.in 8/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
17. Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant would vehemently contend that a Will is a document which requires proof in accordance with Section 68 or Section 69 or Section 71 of the Evidence Act. If the attesting witnesses are not alive or they could not be examined, it is for the propounder to prove the Will in accordance with Section 69 by examining persons who are acquainted with the signatures of the attesting witnesses and that of the Testator as provided under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
18. Section 71 could be invoked only when it is shown that the attesting witness denies or does not recollect execution of the document. Therefore, non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 68 or 69 which is mandatory would amount to the propounder not proving the Will in the manner known to law. Therefore, the propounder cannot be favoured with a grant of Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed.
19. Contending contra Mr.R.Madanagopal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would vehemently contend that all out efforts were made by the plaintiffs to prove the Will. The original Will was lost and it could not be traced, one of the attesting witnesses viz., Dr.Daniel had died. His http://www.judis.nic.in 9/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 death certificate has been produced as Ex.P8. The Executor appointed under the Will had also died and his death certificate has also been marked as Ex.P7. The other attesting witness Mr.Ramakrishnan was attempted to be examined by issuing a subpoena. But, however the witness wrote to the counsel on 10.04.2018 stating that he is physically unable to let in evidence. He had also produced a Doctor's certificate stating that he is unfit to give evidence and the said certificate was also produced into Court in response to the summons issued by this Court. In view of the same, he could not be examined as a witness.
20. Left without any alternative, the plaintiffs had examined PW3 and PW4 who are witnesses acquainted with the Testator to show that the Will was in fact executed by the Testator. PW3 who happens to be the cousin's son of the Testator had deposed that he is personally aware of the execution of the Will by the deceased C.Madanasundari. He had also spoken about the fact that Venugopal and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 were adopted by C.Madanasundari and they were living with C.Madanasundari in her residence through out. He had also deposed that he is familiar with the signature of C.Madanasundari.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
21. Pointing out that nothing significant has been elicited in cross examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of the witness, Mr.R.Madanagopal, would contend that the evidence of PW3 coupled with the evidence of PW4 would show that the Will is true and valid.
22. Considerable reliance is also placed by Mr.R.Madanagopal on the fact that the Will is a registered instrument. The other witness PW4 is Kasturi Raj. He had deposed that he has married C.Madanasundari's sister's grand-daughter K.Indira. It is seen from Ex.D2 that K.Indira is one of the authors of the letter dated 15th April 2014. She is also a signatory to the letter dated 21st May 2014 which is said to have been executed by all the heirs of C.Madanasundari authorizing PW4 to collect the rents.
23. PW4 in his proof affidavit has stated that the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 were signed by all the family members including his wife only as an interim arrangement and those papers were prepared by the 3rd defendant. He has also deposed that it was the 3rd defendant who had misled the members of the family and obtained the signatures in the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014. Mr.R.Madanagopal would also point out that nothing useful has been elicited in the cross examination of the witness in order to discredit his evidence.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
24. Mr.R.Madanagopal would also submit that there is enough and more evidence to show that the 3rd defendant is in custody of the original Will dated 19.11.1986 executed by the deceased C.Madanasundari. Drawing my attention to Exs.P10, P11 and P12 the learned counsel would submit that the 3rd defendant had furnished all the particulars relating to the Will in his application for certified copy of the Will dated 27.03.2014. Unless he was possessed of the original Will he would not have been able to give all the particulars that are found in Ex.P12 which is a copy application made by the 3rd defendant to the Sub-Registrar of Purasaiwalkam seeking certified copy of the Will dated 19.11.1986.
25. Pointing out that the copy application contains the name of the executant, number of the document, particulars of the books and page numbers of the books in which the Will is entered by the Sub-Registrar have been meticulously reproduced in the copy application, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that the 3rd defendant is in possession of the original Will and despite having knowledge of the Will he had drafted the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 and made all the legal heirs of C.Madanasundari to sign the same only to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. http://www.judis.nic.in 12/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
26. I find considerable force in the arguments of Mr.R.Madanagopal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs with reference to drawing of adverse inference. It is seen that the Public Information Officer of Sub- Registrar's Office, Purasaiwalkam had by his letter dated 09.03.2016 marked as Ex.P10 has informed the 1st plaintiff that the copy of the Will was applied for on 27.03.2014 and the same was furnished to the applicant on the same day.
27. Upon the request of the 1st plaintiff a certified copy of the copy application filed by the 3rd defendant had been furnished to the plaintiffs by Sub-Registrar, Purasaiwalkam. The said covering letter has been marked as Ex.P11 and the copy application itself has been marked as Ex.P12. As rightly pointed out by Mr.R.Madanagopal, the copy application contains all details of the document namely the Will. Unless the 3rd defendant was possessed of the original document itself he would not have been able to give the particulars that he had disclosed in the copy application dated 27.03.2014 marked as Ex.P12.
28. The details set out are of such nature that they could be gathered only from the original or a copy of the document. It is therefore http://www.judis.nic.in 13/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 clear that the 3rd defendant was in possession of the original and he had screened it away from the other heirs and even after having obtained the copy of the Will he has chosen to draft the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 and got them signed by all the other legal heirs. The evidence of PW4 puts the execution of the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 beyond any pale of doubt. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the 3rd defendant for suppression of the original Will.
29. Mr.R.Madanagopal would also draw my attention to the cross examination of DW1, wherein, he had admitted that he had filed Ex.P12 copy application showing his address as No.23, Kellys Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10 and that he has deposed that he had obtained the details by book number, page number and volume number etc., from the Clerk in the Sub-Registrar Office. However, he is unable to recollect the name of the Clerk. Pointing out the fallacy in the said evidence, Mr.R.Madanagopal would submit that the said evidence is so unnatural that nobody can expect a Clerk in a Registrar's Office to disclose finer details relating to a document that has been executed and registered way back in 1986 i.e., nearly after 30 years of its execution in 2016.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
30. My attention is also drawn to the further evidence of DW1, wherein, he has deposed that he has informed the relatives of C.Madanasundari about the Will within one week of getting the same. It is clear that the said statement is untrue because of his subsequent evidence, wherein, he had said that Himashankar in the meeting held on 15.04.2014 informed the relatives that there was no Will and the original documents relating to the property were also not available. Therefore, it is clear that DW1 viz., 3rd defendant is not speaking the truth before the court. It is also pointed out that he has admitted filling up the dates in the letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014. These discrepancies in the evidence lead me to believe that DW1 is not a trustworthy witness and he is not speaking the truth before the court.
31. I am also unable to accept the two documents viz., Ex.P18 and Ex.D2 dated 21.05.2014 and 15.04.2014. Though, Ex.P18 is dated 21.05.2014 it is shown to have been attested by the notary as early as on 05.04.2014. A copy of the said letter attested by the notary on 05.04.2014 has been marked as Ex.P19 in the cross examination of DW1. The said copy does not contain any date. DW1 has admitted that he had filled up the dates in these letters. I am therefore unable to attach any significance to the two letters dated 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 except to conclude that they were http://www.judis.nic.in 15/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 only intended to be a temporary arrangement till the Will is proved in accordance with law.
32. It is also the contention of Mr.R.Madanagopal, that the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act could not be complied with since one of the attesting witnesses Dr.Daniel had died and the other attesting witness Ramakrishnan was not in a physical condition to depose before Court or at his residence. All efforts taken by the plaintiffs to have Mr.Ramakrishnan examined had proved futile.
33. On the question of compliance with Section 69 of the Evidence Act, Mr.R.Madanagopal, would contend that since the original Will was not available, Section 69 cannot be complied with in full by the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the Will is a registered instrument and it was registered in 1986. Therefore, the certified copy issued by the Registration Department would contain only the signature of the Testator as a person who had submitted the document for registration. The signatures of the witnesses will not be available in the copy furnished.
34. Therefore, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to have examined the person who was acquainted with the signatures of the attesting http://www.judis.nic.in 16/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 witnesses. Hence, Section 69 could not also be complied with. Therefore, according to Mr.R.Madanagopal, court can always expand the scope of Section 71 of the Evidence Act in exceptional circumstances like the one that has arisen in this case and see whether the Will has been proved by other evidence.
35. Mr.R.Madanagopal would also draw my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.P.K.Gopalan Nambiar Vs. P.P.K.Balakrishnan Nambiar reported in 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 664, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had pointed out that though the burden of proving a Will is on the propounder, the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Testator or cannot expect the propounder to remove all kind of suspicions while doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:-
“Though it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will and to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. In the present case the suspicion entertained by the trial court and the High Court was without any basis.” http://www.judis.nic.in 17/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
36. My attention is also drawn by Mr.R.Madanagopal to the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court C.G.Raveendran and others Vs. C.G.Gopi and others reported in AIR 2015 Kerala 250, wherein, the Kerala High court had held that even though the witness who was examined to satisfy the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence Act had not deposed that he had seen the attesting witness affixed their signatures in the Will, the said evidence would be sufficient to discharge the onus is on the propounder so long as the witness had stated that the attesting witnesses have affixed their signatures in the Will. But, in the case on hand we have a special situation wherein the provisions of Section 68 cannot at all be complied with because one of the attesting witnesses had died and the other attesting witness is unable to testify. The recourse to Section 69 is also blocked since the original Will itself is not available before the court. The requirement of identifying the signatures of attesting witnesses cannot be met.
37. Can the court close its eyes to the other evidence available and reject the prayer for grant of Letters of Administration?
The answer to this question in my considered opinion would be a categoric no. Section 71 makes a provision or enables the propounder to prove the will by letting in other evidence to show that the Will was http://www.judis.nic.in 18/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 properly executed and attested, despite the absence of evidence that would meet the statutory requirements of Sections 68 and 69.
38. But, the circumstances under which Section 71 could be invoked or limited to two instances viz., (1) inability of an attesting witness to recollect the execution of the Will or the denial of attestation of the attesting witness. Section 71 in my considered opinion cannot be given such a restricted meaning so as to render it useless when the examination of the attesting witness and or the proof of the signatures of the attesting witness becomes impossible. To put Section 71 in a straight jacket or to pigeon hole it and restrict it only to the two situations contemplated therein would not be in the interest of justice. When it is open to the propounder to prove the Will by other evidence even in the worst case of attesting witness denying the attestation it will always be open to the propounder to prove the Will in the case where the requirements of Sections 68 and 69 could not be satisfied strictly.
39. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Purnima Debi and another Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another reported in AIR 1962 SC 567, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if a Will has been registered, the registration http://www.judis.nic.in 19/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 by itself would be a circumstance to prove its genuineness. On the facts of the present case I don't find any suspicious circumstance in execution of the Will by the Testator. There is enough and more evidence in the form of the documents to show that the three plaintiffs were in fact living with the Testator as her adopted children right through.
40. The documents that have been produced viz., the ration card and other exhibits would show that the husband of the 1st plaintiff was shown as a family member of the deceased and the other two plaintiffs were also residing along with the Testator in the property in question. The family card of the deceased Testator has been produced as Ex.P2. A perusal of the same would show R.Venugopal and plaintiffs 1 to 3 as the members of the family of the Testator.
41. Moreover, the Will very clearly states that R.Venugopal and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the adopted children of the Testator. Once the Will declares them to be the adopted children of the Testator, I don't think that it will be open to the 3rd defendant to contend that the adoption is not true. Therefore, dispositions made in the Will cannot be said to be unnatural or suspicious. The only condition that was laid down under the Will was that Venugopal should get married. It is seen from the evidence http://www.judis.nic.in 20/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 that Venugopal had married and he has begotten the plaintiffs 2 and 3 out of the said marriage. Therefore, there was no suspicious circumstance in execution of the Will in favour of the beneficiaries.
42. A novel plea is taken by the 3rd defendant to the effect that merely because the Testator died 27 years after the execution of the Will, the Will cannot be believed to be true. The very fact that the Testator died 27 years after the execution of the Will and she did not chose to alter or change the Will would show that whatever stated in the Will is true.
43. As already stated, the Will is a registered instrument. The act of registration itself adds a certain sanctity to the instrument. The Registering Officer is required under Sections 52 and 58 of the Registration Act to make certain endorsements regarding the day, hour and place of presentation and the signature of every persons presenting the document and the receipt of the document by the Officer and Section 58 of the Act requires the Registering Officer to endorse the following in the documents:
a) signature and addition of every person admitting the execution of the document or the representative of the execution
b) signatures and addition of every person examined in reference to such document under the provisions of the Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
c) any payment of money or delivery of goods made in presence of the registering officer and in the reference to such execution.
44. Section 59 of the Act requires the registering officer to affix the date and his signature to all the endorsements made by him under Section 52 and 58 of the Act. Once that is done Section 60(2) creates a presumption that all facts mentioned in the endorsements have occurred as therein mentioned and the certificate so signed by the registering officer is made admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered.
45. This presumption is a statutory presumption and the same is a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, it is for the person who denies execution of a registered instrument to show that the registration was also flawed by leading reliable evidence which would be strong enough to dis- credit the presumption created under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act.
46. There is no evidence much less strong evidence to rebut the presumption in the case on hand. PW3 had deposed that he had seen Testator executing the Will and the Will has also been duly registered as http://www.judis.nic.in 22/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 required under the provisions of the Registration Act. I have already found that the original Will must be in the hands of the 3rd defendant and he has burked it from the court with a view to get an unlawful gain. Therefore, adverse inference has been drawn against the 3rd defendant for non- production of the original Will.
47. From the evidence that is available on record particularly the evidence of PW3 and PW4, I am of the considered opinion that the propounders have done what all they could do in order to prove the execution of the Will. The said evidence also in my opinion satisfies the requirements of Section 71 of the Evidence Act to prove the Will by other evidence available on hand.
48. The circumstances set out under Section 71 cannot be limited to the two situations contemplated alone. As already pointed out when a propounder is allowed to prove a Will, the attestation of which is denied by an attesting witness by producing other evidence, I don't see any wrong in allowing the propounder who is unable to prove attestation because of the non-availability of the original Will, to prove the Will by other evidence. http://www.judis.nic.in 23/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
49. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have established the execution of the Will by late C.Madanasundari and that they are entitled to Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed.
50. In fine, the Testamentary Original Suit is decreed as prayed for granting Letters of Administration in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S.II), High Court, Madras.
04.09.2019
dsa
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/ Non-speaking order
Witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
PW1 – V.Latha PW2 – Jamuna Hari Krishna Kumar PW3 – T.N.Udaya Shankar PW4 – P.K.Kasthuri Raj Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 24/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 Sl. Exhibits Description Dated No. 1 Ex.P1 Sale deed registered as Doc.No.1006/1951 07.05.1951 in favour of the deceased C.Madanasundari 2 Ex.P2 Family Card of C.Madanasundari 2005 – 2009 3 Ex.P3 Death Certificate of R.Venugopal 26.05.2006 4 Ex.P4 Certified copy of the Will 20.11.1986 5 Ex.P5 Death certificate of C.Madanasundari 23.11.2013 6 Ex.P6 Legal heirship certificate of plaintiffs 1 to 3 31.03.2015 7 Ex.P7 Death certificate of P.Inder Mohan 06.03.1990 8 Ex.P8 Death certificate of Dr.Daniel 05.02.1996 9 Ex.P9 Letter by the 1st plaintiff to the Public 23.02.2016 Information Officer 10 Ex.P10 Letter by the Public Information Officer to 09.03.2016 the 1st plaintiff 11 Ex.P11 Letter by the 1st plaintiff to the Sub- 09.06.2016 Registrar, Purasaiwalkam 12 Ex.P12 Certified copy of the application by the 3rd 27.03.2014 defendant 13 Ex.P13 Legal notice with cover of the 3rd defendant 25.02.2015 to the counsel for the plaintiffs 14 Ex.P14 Notice of the plaintiffs' counsel to 3rd 09.11.2017 defendant's counsel 15 Ex.P15 Reply notice of the 3rd defendant's counsel 11.12.2017 to the plaintiffs' counsel 16 Ex.P16 Certified copy of the decree in C.S.No.112 28.04.1958 of 1955 17 Ex.P17 First death anniversary ceremony card of --
C.Madanasundari's husband M.T.Pillai 18 Ex.P18 Authorization letters 15.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 19 Ex.P19 Notarised letter 05.04.2014 http://www.judis.nic.in 25/27 T.O.S.No.51 of 2016 Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendants:-
DW1 – C.C.Anand @ Karunanidhi Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:-
Sl. Exhibits Description Dated
No.
1 Ex.D1 Original Gazetter notification for proof for --
change of name of the 3rd defendant
2 Ex.D2 Original Authorisation letter 15.04.2014
3 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the Will 19.11.1986
04 .09.2019
dsa
http://www.judis.nic.in
26/27
T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN.J.,
dsa
T.O.S.No.51 of 2016
04.09.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
27/27