Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This suit was initially filed by Sri. S.C.Thimappa, who was the Executor of the Will. He passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. The Defendant No.4 transposed herself as the Plaintiff. The suit is filed for passing a decree for administration of the suit property in accordance with the the directions in the Will dt: 6/3/1995 of Ms. Ethel Wesley

2. The description of the plaint schedule property is as under:

SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the immovable property known as Laxmi nivas bearing New No. 139 and Old No. 506, 10th 'A' Cross, situated in Ist Block/Main, Jayanagar, Bengaluru which is bounded on the:
4. Rs. 10,000/- to Smt. Lalitha Kumari Wesley.
5. Rs. 10,000/- to Smt. Rani Wesley.
6. Rs. 20,000/- to Presbyter Hudson Memorial Church, Bangalore, to be kept as fixed deposit in the name of Church.

3. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the Plaintiff has been appointed as the Executor by late Ms. Ethel Wesley in her registered Will dt: 6/3/1995. She passed away on 25/8/1999. She was a Spinster at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of Bengaluru. The Plaintiff as an Executor appointed under the said registered Will, applied for Probate to the Hon'ble City Civil Judge's Court, Bengaluru in P & S.C. No.15023/2003 (City Civil Judge's Court, Mayohall Unit) and as per Order dt: 5/2/2003, the said court granted the Probate with the Will annexed to it, to the Plaintiff. Thus, in his capacity as an Executor he is authorised to administer the estate of the deceased in accordance with the Will probated by the Court. As per the said Will, Testator had left behind her both movable and immovable properties at Mysore and at Bengaluru, as well as Gold and Silver articles and other household articles being collections and self-earnings. She had her Bank deposits depicted therein. One of the immovable properties situated at 506, Ist Block, 10th A Main road, 5th Cross, Jayanagar, Bengaluru named as Lakshmi Nivas, which is the suit property. The legacy relating to the same in the Will is as follows:-

7. The Defendants No. 2 to 4 have filed the written statement admitting the plaint averments and have prayed to decree the suit.

8. Based on the aforesaid pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the due execution of Will dated 6.3.1995 by deceased Ethel Wesley?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has been appointed as Executor of the Will deed and obtained probate by virtue of order dated: 5.2.2003?

17. Issue No.5 :- In this case the Executor is dead. The present parties to the suit have a joint right in the property as per the terms of the Will. This suit is only in respect of immovable property. Therefore this suit has to be treated as a suit for partition and a preliminary decree should be ordered to be drawn to divide the property as per the Terms of the 'Will' with a direction to Defendant No.1 to discharge the liability cast on her by the Executor of the Will. Considering the relationship between the parties and the relief granted to the parties, the parties must be directed to bear their respective costs.