Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(F) Since the brother of testator Sri M.N.Shivaprakash- defendant No.10 left India, there was a need for modification of the earlier Will executed by the testator M.N.Ranganathan. Therefore, he again, executed the last Will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) and revoked all his earlier Wills and bequeathed his entire present and future properties in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and appointed plaintiff No.3 as Executrix of the said Will. It was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, on 30-12-1992. Under the said Will, nothing was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 and other defendants. Copy of the Will was furnished by the testator to the plaintiffs.

(H) Between 1995 and 1996, the testator had to be hospitalized number of times in M.S. Ramaiah hospital and various other hospitals and at that time also, the plaintiffs did not come and take care of the testator. The plaintiffs did not volunteer any help or visited him. Therefore, the testator had expressed that the plaintiffs were pressing him to execute the Gift Deed and he changed his mind to execute the Will in favour of all his brothers and sisters by revoking the earlier Will. The testator was an educated person and he was mentally agile and taking his own decision and only the physical help was rendered by the defendants. (I) They admitted that testator was staying in the house of defendant No.2 and that the testator could not attend the wedding of plaintiff No.2 due to his health conditions. It is stated that even after the marriage, plaintiff No.2 did not even visit the testator to receive his blessings. They denied that plaintiffs were not allowed to meet the testator Ranganatha. (J) On 12th day ceremony of testator, plaintiff No.3 broached the subject of the property of testator and the Will of 1992 and defendant No.1 requested that it may be discussed on some other day. It is alleged that plaintiff No.3 was adamant and wanted the matter to be discussed then and there. Therefore, defendant No.1 brought to the notice of the plaintiff No.3 about the subsequent Will executed by the testator in the year 1996. At that time, plaintiff No.3 shouted that for her 1992 Will is only relevant and she was not even ready to go through the copy of the Will and left in huff. Therefore, defendants No. 1 to 6 contended that the Will dated 27-01-1996 of the testator is the last Will and there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs and the Court fee paid is not sufficient.

(K) Ultimately, defendants No. 1 to 6 prayed that the suit may be dismissed and they also further prayed that the Court may pleased to declare that the Will made by testator dated 27-01-1996 as a last Will and to declare that earlier Will dated 30-12-1992 has been revoked. They also stated that they have no objection that the properties being partition as per the bequest Will made in the last Will of 1996.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court;

59. The Evidence shows that DW2 being the husband of defendant No. 2, had taken active role in the execution of the Will at Ex.D1. He cannot be excluded from the purview of an interested witness, as he is also a beneficiary indirectly.

60. Thus the cumulative effect of the above major suspicious circumstances, coupled with the other discrepancies in the evidence pointed out by the learned counsels enumerated supra, show that the Will at Ex.D1 is shrouded with many suspicious circumstances, which in normal course cannot lead to an inference that the testator had bequeathed his entire estate out of his free will and volition. We are unable to fathom the reason which led the testator to change his mind to make the bequest to all his half blooded siblings, whom he had shunned in his earlier Wills, by deviating from his earlier intentions.