Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It was found that Ganesa Moorthy Pillai, the former Manager had left a Will dated 17.02.1995, in which he had made his son K.G.Kanthakumar to be the owner of the school. In a subsequent Will, dated 28.02.1995, he had stated that both movable and immovable properties will go to his two male heirs in equal parts. On 19.10.1996, a document was registered at Parasalai, (which is a settlement) by which it was found that the school building will be enjoyed absolutely by Kanthakumar. Since in the second Will dated 28.02.1995, it was stated that both the movable and immovable properties were to be inherited by both the sons in equal shares, without any order of the Civil Court, the right of the Management of the School cannot be considered by the Department and both the legal heirs were directed to approach the appropriate Civil Court for getting appropriate relief. Challenging the said order, the writ petition came to be filed.

vi)In respect of the second schedule property, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get 21/40 shares?.

vii) In respect of the first schedule property, whether it is correct to state that 4 and 5th defendants were responsible for mismanagement?

viii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?

10. The Trial Court found that the school was started by one Kandasamy Pillai. There was no proof that he in his personal earnings started the school and since defendants K.G.Kanthakumar and K.G.Sankararanarayanan were born to Ganesamoorthy, the first schedule property should be considered as a joint family property. Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the legal effect of the Will dated 28.02.1995, marked as Ex.B1. The Trial Court found that late Ganesamoorthy executed the first Will and thereafter, without reference to that Will, he executed a second Will and within a short period, the necessity to write the second Will was not explained. In the Will dated 28.02.1995, there was no reference to the Management of the School and it was claimed that after 17.05.1995, since K.G.Kanthakumar, was the School Secretary and Manager as per Ex.B6, the necessity to create subsequent document was not explained. It was found that Ganesamoorthy's physical condition was impaired and he was undergoing medical treatment. Subsequently, as per Ex.B21, he created a Settlement Deed registered at Parasalai (Kerala State). Even though there was a reference to third item in the schedule, it was not visited by any one of them and therefore, the first plaintiff cannot have any right over the property in Door No.44 and Door No.43A. It also found that Ex.B21 was void document and in respect of Ex.B3 and Ex.B1, the first defendant in order to deny the right of others had utilised his relationship with late Ganesamoorthy and created those documents.

13. In the second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs, it was contended that the order of the lower appellate Court was not valid. Late Ganesamoorthy had no right to bequeath the entire school property in favour of his first son. Exs.B1 and B3 were not proved and the Ganesamoorthy was not in sound mental condition and the evidence of P.W.2 was not appreciated by the lower appellate Court regarding the mental condition of Ganesamoorthy. It was also proved that Ganesamoorthy was taking treatment from 1993 to 1996 which was admitted by the first defendant and during which period Exs.A10, A11 and Ex.B2 came into existence. Since in the second Will, there was no reference to the previous Will and there was no reference about the school management, EX.B21 Settlement Deed registered at Parasalai was not valid. Since P.W.3 had not seen late Ganesamoorthy affixing the signature and also spoken about the state of mind, the Will cannot be relied upon. Since no property were allotted to the heirs of the second wife, the will was invalid.