Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The Plaintiff had also filed a reply statement. He denied the averment that S.Moturi Satyanarayana was very fond of his eldest son, M.Krishna Mohan. The fact that the Will was executed was reiterated. It was further stated that the Will was deposited in the custody of the District Registrar, Madras South, by S.Moturi Satyanarayana himself in the presence of two identifying witnesses.

10. It has been further stated in the reply statement with respect to the sale deeds that he had subsequently cancelled the sale deeds and the cancellation deeds had been registered as Document Nos.11765 to 11768 of 2010, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur. It has been stated that the Will was executed at the residence of S.Moturi Satyanarayana in the presence of two attesting witnesses, P.Ravindra Kumar Reddy and J.Raghavendra Rao and thereafter, it was kept in a sealed cover and it was deposited in the Office of the District Registrar, Madras South in the presence of Y.Anjajeyalu and the Plaintiff on the same day. The Testator had not revoked the Will subsequently. He had not modified the Will and he had not executed any codicil. After his death on 6.3.1995, the Will was opened by the District Registrar on 17.7.1995 in the presence of P.Ravindra Kumar Reddy and the 3rd Respondent, Jyothsana Parachuri. This was duly recorded by the District Registrar. The Will was copied and a copy of the Will was filed in Book III, as Document No.31 of 1995 on 19.7.1995. It has been stated that at the time of execution of the Will on 20.5.1983, one of the attesting witnesses, P.Ravindra Kumar Reddy was having his residence at Nellore District. In the year 1995, he was residing at Adyar, Chennai. It was reiterated that the Will was a genuine Will. It was claimed that Letters of Administration must be granted.

11. Based on the pleadings, this court had framed the following issues for trial on 22.04.2016:-

1.Whether the Will dated 20.05.1983, executed by late S.Moturi Satyanaranaya is genuine, valid and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances?

2.Whether the Testator, viz. S.Moturi Satyanarayana had executed another Will dated 04.03.1995 and if so, whether it is valid, genuine and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances?

3.To what other reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled to?

12. The parties were invited to let in oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, Pratap K.Moturi was examined as PW.1. One of the attesting witness to the Will, J.Raghavendra Rao was examined as PW.2. The other attesting witness, P.Ravindra Kumar Reddy was examined as PW.3. The Plaintiff had marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Ex.P1 is the original Will dated 20.5.1983 and Ex.P2 is the cover, which contained the original Will when it was deposited with the District Registrar, Madras South. Ex.P3 is the original death certificate of S.Moturi Satyanarayana and Ex.P4 is the legal heirship certificate of S.Moturi Satyanarayana. Ex.P7 is the letter, dated 6.6.1991 said to have been written by the 1st Defendant. Ex.P8 is the copy of the sale deed in Document No.295 of 1977 in the name of the 1st Defendant. Ex.P9 is the letter said to have been written by S.Moturi Satyanarayana, dated 15.5.1991. Ex.P10 is the settlement deed, executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant and registered as Document No. 416 of 2002. Ex.P11, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are copies of cancellation of settlement deeds.

19. The Will Ex.P1, was deposited in a sealed cover. The said sealed cover was marked as Ex.P2. It was deposited by means of the said sealed cover in the Office of Registrar, Joint I, South Madras. In the sealed cover, the Testator had put his signature. The sealed cover was also signed by two witnesses, Y.Anjajeyalu and the Plaintiff herein. After the death of S.Moturi Satyanarayana, the sealed cover was forwarded to the Registrar (OS), High Court, Madras, by the Registrar, Joint I, South Madras, by letter dated 9.2.2004. The sealed cover was actually opened by the Registrar, Madras South, in the presence of PW.3, P.Ravindra Kumar Reddy and the 3rd Respondent in the OP, Jyothsana Parachuri, who is one of the daughters of S.Moturi Satyanarayana. The Will was subsequently copied and a copy was filed in Book III, as No.31 of 1995,V-27, Pages 39-40. This was on 19.7.1995. The said endorsements are found in Ex.P1.

29. The learned senior counsel for the Defendants stated that the procedure adopted in the present case was not proper.

30. In the present case, the Will was executed at the residence of the Testator at Adyar. Thereafter, the Testator had gone to the Office of the Registrar, Joint I, Saidapet, South Madras and had deposited the Will. The cover containing the deposit of the Will had been produced into the Court. It is Ex.P2. The original Will was marked as Ex.P1. Both the attesting witnesses in Ex.P1 had been examined as PW.2 and PW.3. They had affirmed their signatures in Ex.P1. The fact that they are friends of the Plaintiff will not discredit them from acting as witnesses to the will. It is only natural that the Testator, who was aged 80 years, would choose someone, who are of young age and would be in a position to depose as attesting witness in a court of law,