Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Whether Codicil dated 14.05.2008 is a forged document?

(iv) Whether the Will and Codicil were executed by the testatrix while she was in sound and disposing state of mind without being in a suspicious circumstances?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the issuance of probate in respect of Will and Codicil?

14. The plaintiff, who has been examined as P.W.1, has deposed in chief examination, by way of proof affidavit that W.S.Shanthi Devi had executed her last Will on 12.12.2007 and the said Will was duly registered as Document No.89 of 2007 on 14.12.2007 on the file of Sub Registrar, Periamet. Further, he has stated that the testatrix was a staunch devotee of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Puttaparthi and that was the reason why the Codicil came to be executed, bequeathing one additional flat in favour of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Puttaparthi. He has further sated that all the defendants are also beneficiaries under the Will and Codicil and only in order to grab the entire property of the testatrix, they have opposed the grant of probate and also prevented the attesting witness from adducing evidence before the Court. He has also stated that both the executors viz., himself as well as his father are neither beneficiaries under the Will nor the Codicil. He has also stated that after the demise of the testatrix, the defendants have taken the custody of her entire jewels and they have not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis given any account for the same. He has also stated that as an executor, he is bound to fulfill the wishes of the testatrix W.S.Shanthi Devi and it is only in such circumstances, he has filed the Original Petition for issuance of Probate initially, which was subsequently converted as a Testamentary Original Suit, at the instance of the defendants who opposed the grant by filing caveat.

22. I do not find any evidence whatsoever let in by the defendants that the Codicil was a forged document. In fact, P.W.1 has specifically stated that Codicil was handwritten by the testatrix herself and I do not even find a suggestion put to P.W.1 or C.W.1 that the said Codicil/Ex.P.3 was not in the handwriting of testatrix/W.S.Shanthi Devi.

23. Similarly, the defendants have not even suggested to C.W.1 that the handwriting or signatures are not that of W.S.Shanthi Devi. The sixth defendant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has deposed on behalf of the defendants as D.W.1 and from the evidence of D.W.1, I do not find anything material to support the defence set up that the Codicil is a forged document. She has in fact stated that she has not even seen the copy of the Will and Codicil. She has also admitted the fact that the plaintiff is not a beneficiary under Ex.P.2 Will and Ex.P.3 Codicil. She also admitted to the fact that the testatrix died only three years after execution of Ex.P.3 Codicil. She has also stated that she alleges the Codicil to be forged only because of the fact that the attesting witnesses had stated that they have not signed the Codicil as witnesses. However, from the evidence of C.W.1, it is clear that C.W.1 and her husband have attested not only the Will, but also the Codicil.

33. From the evidence of C.W.1, the Will as well as the Codicil have been proved as required under Law and there being absolute no suspicious circumstances surrounding due execution and attestation of both Will and Codicil, I see no reason as to why the surviving executor should be disentitled to grant of probate of the Will and Codicil.

34. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the plaintiff has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proved the execution and attestation of the Will and Codicil. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the issuance of probate in favour of him. All the issues are thus answered in favour of the plaintiff. It is brought to my notice by Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the plaintiff that despite directions of the learned Master, the defendant has not paid the Court fee. It is made clear that the plaintiff is at liberty to pay the necessary Court fee and recover the same from the contesting defendants.