Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in T.O.S.No.97 of 2013 (O.P.No.485 of 2013) are the appellants before this Court.
2. The appellants as petitioners, filed O.P.No.485 of 2013, seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will of Late Dharmambal @ Pattamal, dated 06.03.2005, registered as Doc.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai South, annexed. Caveat was filed by the daughter of the deceased Dharmambal @ Pattamal, intending to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration as prayed for by the appellants and consequently the O.P proceedings stood converted into a Testamentary Suit and the petitioners became the plaintiffs in the Testamentary Original Suit and the Caveator, the 1st respondent in the O.P became the sole defendant in the Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.97 of 2013.
15. Ex.P1-Will is admittedly a registered Will. This Court, on a perusal of Ex.P1, finds that though the Will is dated 06.03.2005 and attested by P.W.1(Second Appellant) and D.W.1(Respondent), it came to be registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai South, much later on 19.04.2005. It is seen from the registration endorsements on the reverse of the first page of the Ex.P1-Will that the testatrix had signed the Will before the Sub Registrar and affixed her left thumb impression and her signature was also identified by two persons viz., Kothandaraman and J.Jaya. The Will has been registered as Doc.No.14 of 2005 in Book 3 maintained by the Sub Registrar's Office. The second appellant as P.W.1, filed her proof affidavit. In the said proof of affidavit, paragraphs 5 and 8 assume relevance for the purpose of this case and they are extracted for easy reference:
29. In the factual background of the case on hand, on a cumulative analysis of the pleadings and oral evidence of the parties, it is clear that the Will was indeed executed by the testatrix in the presence of two attesting witnesses viz., the second appellant and the respondent on 06.03.2005. The said Will came to be registered on 19.04.2005 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai South. The signature of the testatrix before the Joint Sub Registrar at the time of registration is admitted by her daughter, the contesting party viz., the respondent herein. If really the defence set up by the respondent that the father of the appellants obtained signatures of the respondent's mother in blank papers and using the same, fabricated Ex.P1- Will, then the registration of such a Will with the active presence and participation of the testatrix before the Sub Registrar concerned, that too on a much later date, would be most improbable, if not impossible. It is seen from the tenor of the answers given by the respondent, at more than one place, she has used the words “ I have already told” while answering questions referring to Ex.P1-Will. Infact, the only reason why the Will was termed as fabricated has also come out in cross examination, where she has categorically stated that her attack on Ex.P1-Will being fabricated was only because the said Will was not probated and that without probate her uncle, the father of the appellants executed settlement deed in favour of the appellants. The respondent is not a novice. She is a Post graduate and also held very high position in BSNL, a public sector undertaking. This Court is unable to believe her version that she and her mother signed blank papers and that such blank papers were misused to bring about Ex.P1-Will.