Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Case of the plaintiff is that she was affectionately brought up by Ganesa Vandaiyar from her early childhood and she was treated as his own daughter. Plaintiff was admitted in School in Mangudi Village and later, she was admitted in R.C. School at Pattukottai for further studies. Ganesa Vandaiyar was showering love and affection upon the plaintiff. In a sound disposing state of mind, Ganesa Vandaiyar had voluntarily executed his Last Will on 19.04.1975, under which he has bequeathed all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was duly attested and voluntarily deposited with the District Registrar, Nagapattinam in a sealed cover. Ganesa Vandaiyar died on 11.01.1978. After the death of Ganesa Vandaiyar, plaintiff's next friend - her father reported the death of Ganesa Vandaiyar to the Registrar. On payment of proper fee and production of death certificate, the sealed cover was opened. As per the Will, plaintiff's father - her next friend was put in management of the properties without the power of alienation. Defendants 1 to 3, who are not the residents of the suit village, at the instance of D4 have jointly conspired together and attempting to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff in enjoyment of the suit properties. On 27.01.1978, the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties. Hence, the Suit for declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

4. Denying the plaint averments and right of the plaintiff and further denying the execution of the Will in favour of the plaintiff, D1 had filed written statement contending that Ganesa Vandaiyar had never executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff. According to D1, deceased Ganesa Vandaiyar had executed his Last Will on 14.12.1977 in a sound disposing state of mind and bequeathed all his properties to the 1st defendant. The recitals of the Will direct D3 - Selvanayagam to be in management of the properties and to clear the debts and to hand over the possession of suit properties to the 1st defendant. Pursuant to the Will, 1st defendant is residing in the suit main house. Ganesa Vandaiyar died on 11.01.1978. Since then the Will came into force and D3 is in continuous management of the properties. Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit properties at any point of time. During the last days of Ganesa Vandaiyar, only the 1st defendant was with him, attending to him and getting him treated at a Private Nursing Home at Thanjavur.

5. D3 has filed the written statement denying execution of any Will in favour of the plaintiff. According to D3, Ganesa Vandaiyar had already executed a General Power of Attorney on 28.04.1964 for managing the properties. Pursuant to that Power of Attorney (Ex.B-29), D3 was in management of the suit properties. Ganesa Vandaiyar had executed his Last Will on 14.12.1977 bequeathing all his properties in favour of D1. After death of Ganesa Vandaiyar, D1 became the owner of the properties. But the suit properties continued to be managed by D3 as per the direction in the Will. The minor plaintiff was no way related to Ganesa Vandaiyar; so also Ramajayam referred in the plaint had nothing to do with Ganesa Vandaiyar. Neither the minor plaintiff nor her next friend was in possession of the properties.

15. Case of the plaintiff is that she was affectionately brought up by Ganesa Vandaiyar. She was educated in Mangudi Village and later she was taken to R.C. School at Pattukottai, where she had further school studies. At the time of filing the suit also, plaintiff was studying in R.C. School, Pattukottai. Further case of the plaintiff is that she was brought up by Ganesa Vandaiyar as his own daughter. As noted by the Lower Appellate Court, Ramajayam - paternal aunt of the plaintiff was not examined in the Court. Ramajayam would have been the proper person to speak about the reason for Ganesa Vandaiyar to bring up Muthuselvi (plaintiff) in his house and bequeath his properties in exclusion of all his close relatives. P.W. 2 Murugaiyan, father of plaintiff was not frequently visiting house of Ganesa Vandaiyar at Solaikulam. He was only occasionally visiting the house of Ganesa Vandaiyar. P.W. 2 cannot be said to be a competent person to speak about the reason for Ganesa Vandaiyar to bequeath all his properties in favour of the plaintiff.