Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:-

i) The properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint were that of late T.Kanagaraj. Mrs.Stella Kanagaraj, the first respondent/first plaintiff and Mrs.Joseph Anthony Arokkia Selvi, the second respondent/second plaintiff are, respectively the wife and daughter of late T.Kanagaraj. Late T.Kanagaraj was suffering from acute diabetics due to which his kidney and vision were affected and he was put on dialysis for about 2 years prior to his death. The entire administration of the bone mill run by him and the kalyana mandapam owned by him called "Holy Mother Palace" was with the third respondent/second defendant. He was virtually in possession of all the documents and cheque books of late Kanagaraj. Parvathy, the 4th respondent/3rd defendant is the concubine of late T.Kanagaraj. Arockia Mary, the 5th respondent/4th defendant is the daughter of Parvathy and the 6th respondent/5th defendant Radhakrishnan is her husband. The appellant/first defendant and respondents 3 to 6/defendants 2 to 5 jointly hatched out a plan to usurp the properties of late T.Kanagaraj and they put their plan in action by forming a trust and creating a Will. Late T.Kanagaraj died intestate and under law the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 alone inherited the plaint schedule properties left by the said Kanagaraj. Since the 3rd respondent/2nd defendant Mohanraj was the Manager of the bone mill and was also handling the two cars and one lorry owned by the said Kanagaraj, he stealthily screened one of the cars, namely Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TCT 7085 and the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 C-7578 in the guise of business transaction. He also removed the original documents pertaining to the kalyana mandapam called "Holy Mother Palace" and also the blank cheque leaves with the signatures of late T.Kanagaraj. The appellant/first defendant and the respondents 3 to 6/defendants 2 to 5 claimed that the trust was formed by the appellant and Late Kanagaraj bequeathed his properties under a Will dated 05.11.2004 and that the properties came to be vested with the trust on the death of Kanagaraj on 26.12.2004. When the said claim was made known to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, they made verification and found that the Will dated 05.11.2004 was a rank forgery and the trust was a pseudo trust. A suitable reply to the notice was issued denying the alleged disposition made in the said will propounded by the appellant/first defendant and respondents 3 to 6/defendants 2 to 5 and stating that the same was unnatural since the wife and legitimate daughter of the alleged testator had been totally disinherited. Leaving certain properties in respect of which Kanagaraj had got a loan to the tune of about 29.00 lakhs, the un-encumbered properties alone were sought to be bequeathed in favour of the trust. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of all the properties of Kanagaraj, including "Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi" in respect of which certain kattalais have been incorporated in the Will.
v) The Will is unnatural since the legal heirs, namely the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, who are the legally wedded wife and legitimate daughter of late Kanagaraj have been disinherited for no reason whatsoever.

16. Per contra, it is the contention of the appellant and respondents 3 to 6/defendants that the Trust was created and the Trust deed was executed on the advice of late Kanagaraj, who wanted to give some of his properties to the Trust with specific kattalais; that though late Kanagaraj was affected with diabetics and renal failure and was put on dialysis, he was mentally sound and he voluntarily executed Ex.B1-Will and got it registered in a sound disposing state of mind; that the contention of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs that they have been totally disinherited is erroneous in so far as valuable properties like paper factory and bone mill were not bequeathed under the Will and kalyana mandapam and Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi alone were bequeathed under the Will; that late Kanagaraj made up his mind to make such a Will because he had been abandoned by his wife and daughter during his last days and all along he was in the kalyana mandapam taking dialysis treatment; that with philanthropic object late Kanagaraj executed the Will bequeathing the properties to the Trust and included a direction to give a sum of Rs.5,000/- per annum to the third defendant till her life time and after her life time to the fourth defendant and that the said direction was included in the Will, perhaps of his apprehension that their claim to be the legal heirs of late Kanagaraj would be resisted on the ground of absence of marital relationship/ invalidity of the marriage with the third defendant and illegitimacy of the fourth defendant.

25. It is true that the plaintiffs are the legally wedded wife and legitimate daughter of Kanagaraj and that they are not given any property under Ex.B1-Will. But the said fact alone will not be enough to hold that they have sought to be totally disinherited. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that under Ex.B1-Will, all the properties owned by late T.Kanagaraj was sought to be bequeathed under the Will totally disinheriting the plaintiffs. Only the suit properties were made the subject matter of the bequest made under the Will. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that there was a bone mill,a card board factory and a paper mill, which have not been included in the Will. Therefore, it is quite obvious that running businesses, namely the bone mill, card board factory and paper mill, were spared by Kanagaraj to be inherited by his non-testamentary legal heirs and only the suit properties were bequeathed to the legatees under the Will. The suit properties are none other than Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi constructed and maintained by Kanagaraj in front of the paper mill, a vacant land annexed to the same in which a canteen is being run by one Saraswathi and a Kalyana Mandapam known as "Holy Mother Palace", a Maruthi car, An Ambassador car and a lorry. All the suit properties have been bequeathed under the Will to the Trust called "Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi Charitable Trust". The Trust to which the said properties were bequeathed has been directed to spend a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum for conducting the annual festival of Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was directed to be spent for feeding the devotees thrice during the annual festival of St. Joseph Church (g[dpj R{irag;gh; Myak;), Karungulam and a sum of Rs.1,000/- on a day in every week was directed to be spent for providing food to the persons attending Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi. In addition to the above said charities, it has been directed that the third defendant Parvathy should be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the income of the Trust properties, till her life time and after her life time, the said amount should be paid to the fourth defendant Arockia Mary and her legal heirs. A consideration of the contents of Ex.B1-Will show that late Kanagaraj aimed at providing source for certain charities and at the same time wanted to ensure that a recurring payment is made from the income of the Trust properties to the third defendant till her life time and thereafter to the fourth defendant and her legal heirs. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the same could have been done as the testator was conscious of the fact that the third defendant cannot get any share from the estate of late Kanagaraj as a non-testamentary legal heir and any claim that may be made by the fourth defendant as a non-testamentary legal heir may also be resisted. Relying on Exs.A139 and A140, it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the second defendant applied for encumbrance certificate and made the un-encumbered properties included in the Will leaving the encumbered properties. It is further contended that the encumbrance certificates were obtained on the instructions of Kanagaraj. The mere fact that such an encumbrance certificate was obtained and there is no encumbrance in respect of the properties included in the Ex.B1-Will, will not be enough to make the Will unnatural and on the other hand, the choice of giving un-encumbered properties to the Trust made by the testator on his wisdom cannot be doubted. In fact, as indicated above, it has not been proved that all the remaining properties encumbered and the liabilities are huge enough to eat away the entire assets left untouched by Ex.B1-Will.

28. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the fact that Ex.B2-Trust Deed came to be executed on 04.11.2004, a day prior to the date of Ex.B1-Will, will show that both the documents were created with the help of the second defendant. It is pointed out on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Kalyana Mandapam address itself is given as the address of the Registered Office of the Trust in Ex.B2-Trust Deed whereas the said property had been bequeathed only subsequently, namely on 05.11.2004. It is true that the Registered Office of "Annai Velankanni Matha Kebi Chartiable Trust" is given as "at Holy Mother Palace, No.6, Old Police Hospital Street, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli". The mere fact that the Registered office of the Trust was shown to be a building, which did not belong to the Trust at that point of time, shall not be the sole ground on which genuineness of either the Trust Deed (Ex.B2) or Ex.B1-Will can be doubted. The Trust itself was created for the maintenance "Kebi" established and run by Kanagaraj and certain charities attached to the same. Clear evidence has been adduced through D.Ws.1 and 3 that the Trust itself was created on the advice of Kanagaraj, who was desirous of bequeathing properties in favour of the Trust. There won't be any wonder in a person who made up his mind allowing one of his properties which he intends to bequeath to the Trust, to be used as the Registered office of the Trust. Therefore, the said fact that the Registered Office of the Trust is shown to be the Holy Mother Palace in Ex.B2 alone shall not be enough to doubt the genuineness of either Ex.B2-Trust Deed or Ex.B1-Will.