Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It is true that the defendants have been disinherited and the entire legacy has gone in favour of the appellant. But this cannot be deemed as a suspicious circumstance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in quite a few cases https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis held that the purpose of executing a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. If the property is to be inherited as per the laws of succession, then there is no need for executing a Will at all. Hence, this cannot be suspicious circumstance. The appellant is not a third party. He was the husband of Rajalakshmi who is none other than the niece of the testator. It is quite possible that Venkatasamy Naicker who returned from Singapore was taken care only by Rajalakshmi and her husband Rajagopal. In fact in the Will also, there is a recital to this effect. Venkatasamy bequeathed his estate to Rajagopal. It is true that the schedule of property is not mentioned. It is not necessary that the schedule of property has to be specifically mentioned. Rajagopal has been treated as an universal legatee of Venkatasamy Naicker. Therefore, the trial Court rightly approached the issue as regards Ex.A.9 Will and the reasons given by the first appellate Court are clearly erroneous. I therefore answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and hold that the suit Will has been duly proved by the appellant. But this will not mean that the decision of the trial Court would stand automatically restored. There are quite a few special features obtaining in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this case. The foremost feature is that Ramasamy Naicker died on 05.11.1959 and obviously succession opened immediately on his demise. Ramasamy Naicker while executing the Will in the year 1959 was not sure if his son was alive or not. Therefore, after the death of Ramasamy Naicker his estate naturally devolved on his two daughters, namely, Nachiarammal and Chelliammal. Nachiarammal and Chelliammal succeeded to the estate of Ramasamy Naicker. They were enjoying the property as if they are its absolute owners. They had also dealt with the properties. Under Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7 Nachiarammal and Chelliammal had dealt with the suit properties. The purchasers under the said sale deeds had been enjoying the properties as absolute owners and the revenue records had also been mutated in their names. They had perfected title over the properties purchased by them by sheer prescription. Such properties which were alienated before the arrival of Venkatasamy cannot obviously be included in the decree for partition.