Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. Brief plaint averments are as follows:-
The first suit schedule properties belonged to one Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and the second suit schedule properties belonged to his wife Anandam Ammal and both of them died intestate. The 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st appellant/1st defendant are the daughters of Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and Anandam Ammal. After the demise of their parents, the suit properties were in common enjoyment of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Since the plaintiff was not interested in common enjoyment, she requested the 1st defendant for partition through an advocate notice dated 28.09.2001 and the 1st defendant sent a reply notice dated 05.10.2001, stating that Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and Anandam Ammal executed separate wills in respect of the suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis properties on 17.08.1993 and after their demise, the said wills came into force, and accordingly, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and Anandam Ammal never executed any will and the alleged wills are fabricated by the 1st defendant in order to grab the plaintiff's share in the suit properties. Further, on the date of will, Anandam Ammal was suffering from paralysis and was unconscious and therefore, it is highly improbable to state that she executed a will dated 17.08.1993. Hence, the suit.
3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant adopted by the defendants 2 to 5 are as follows:-
The averment that the first suit schedule properties belonged to Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and the second suit schedule properties belonged to his wife Anandam Ammal is admitted. They executed separate wills on 17.08.1993 in a sound disposing state of mind and without any instigation. As per the will executed by Sankaralinga Muthaliyar on 17.08.1993, items 1 and 2 of the first suit schedule properties were bequeathed to the defendants 2 and 1 respectively. As https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis far as items 3 and 4 in the first suit schedule properties, it was bequeathed to the defendants 2 to 6. In respect of the second schedule properties, Anandam Ammal executed a will dated 17.08.1993, bequeathing the second suit schedule properties equally to the defendants 1 to 3 and 6. After the demise of Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and Anandam Ammal, the abovesaid wills came into force and accordingly, the defendants were in possession of their respective properties as per the wills. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the suit properties and there was no common possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as alleged in the plaint, whereas, it is the individual properties of the defendants. The allegation that Anandam Ammal was suffering from paralysis on the date of the execution of the will dated 17.08.1993 is denied as false, whereas, on the date of execution of the will dated 17.08.1993, she was in a sound disposing state of mind. The plaintiff never stated in his advocate notice that Sankaralinga Muthaliyar and Anandam Ammal died intestate.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the relationship is admitted and the character of the suit properties is also admitted. The 1st respondent is a widow and she is also taking care of her children and one of her son-in-laws is a Doctor who has given https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis treatment to the parents of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent's father suffered with Cancer and her mother suffered with paralysis and both were mentally as well as physically not fit to execute the wills. The parents also had affection towards the 1st respondent and that the execution of the wills has not been proved in the manner known to law. There are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the depositions of DW1 and DW2, who is said to have attested the wills executed by the parents of the 1st respondent. DW2 is none other than the close friend of the 2nd respondent/6th defendant and larger portion of the property has been bequeathed to the 2nd respondent and he is a major beneficiary and he actively participated in the execution of the wills.