Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He was succeeded by five children, namely, E. Somasundaram, E. Ramasamy, Sarojini (present respondent no. 1), Vasanthamani (present respondent no. 2), and Savithri (present respondent no. 3). On 21.04.2009, approximately 26 years after the death of Eswaramurthy Gounder, his daughter (present respondent no. 1) instituted Probate Original Petition No. 72 of 2009 before the District Court against her two sisters (present respondent no. 2 and present respondent no. 3), claiming that her father executed an unregistered Will in her favour on 09.01.1976. 3.3. Furthermore, on 29.04.2009, present respondent no. 1 instituted O.S. No. 110 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif of Palladam, seeking a declaration of title of the suit properties by virtue of the Will dated 09.01.1976, alongside a relief of injunction. In response, in March 2011, the appellants instituted O.S. No. 247 of 2011 and O.S. No. 248 of 2011 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, seeking permanent injunction restraining the present respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On __________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20055 of 2022 Page 3 17.06.2011, the High Court of Madras, vide order in C.R.P. Nos. 1726 and 1727 of 2011, directed that O.S. No. 110 of 2009 be transferred and tried jointly with the aforesaid suits before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur. Subsequently, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur vide orders dated 17.11.2011 and 30.09.2011, allowed the appellant's I.A. No. 425 of 2011 in O.S. No. 247 of 2011 and I.A. No. 427 of 2011 in O.S. No. 248 of 2011 respectively, thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of the appellants.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20055 of 2022 Page 10 5.1. Learned Counsel submitted that the father of present respondent no. 1, Eswaramurthy Gounder, executed an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976 in her favour and passed away on 05.05.1983. Thereafter, present respondent no. 1 filed P.O.P. No. 72 of 2009 before the District Court, for the grant of probate of the said Will, and the District Court, upon due consideration, granted probate in her favour vide order dated 26.11.2009. It is submitted that since the death of her father, present respondent no. 1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the provisions of law as well as the relevant judicial decisions on the point in question, the following facts would emerge from the record:

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20055 of 2022 Page 13 6.1. It is the case of the present respondent no. 1 (Sarojini) in the probate petition, bearing P.O.P. No. 72 of 2009, filed by her before the District Court, under Section 276 of the ISA, that the father of the respondent no. 1, namely, Eswaramurthy Gounder, had executed an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976 in favour of the present respondent no. 1 (the petitioner of P.O.P. No. 72 of 2009). The said Will is attested by two witnesses. Father of the present respondent no. 1 died on 05.05.1983, and the executants never disclosed about his Will to anybody, including the petitioner (present respondent no. 1) and the other two respondents in the said petition (present respondents no. 2 and 3). The description of the properties was mentioned in the said petition, and prayer was made to grant probate of the unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976. It is relevant to observe that in the said probate proceedings, the present respondent no. 1 only impleaded present respondents no. 2 and 3 as party respondents.

6.2. It would further emerge that immediately thereafter i.e. on 29.04.2009 the present respondent no. 1 filed O.S. No. 110 of 2009 against 12 defendants including one C.R. Palanisamy Gounder and Manickavasagam. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the present respondent no. 1 specifically averred that deceased Eswaramurthy Gounder had 03 daughters and 02 sons as his legal heirs. During his lifetime, deceased Eswaramurthy Gounder was with plaintiff (present respondent no. 1), who is the first daughter and he was looked after for about 10 years prior to his death. It is also stated that the father of present respondent no. 1, namely, Eswaramurthy Gounder, died on 05.05.1983. The present respondent no. 1, further stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that she was under the impression that the properties belonging to her father were available to be partitioned in between his legal heirs till recently. But when she approached the other legal heirs for the purpose of effecting a partition, her brothers, namely, E. Somasundaram and E. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20055 of 2022 Page 15 Ramasamy, were evasive and reluctant to take any steps for the legal demand of the plaintiff in this regard. It is the specific case of respondent no. 1 in the said plaint that her sister, namely, Savithri informed her that her father had executed an unregistered Will on 09.01.1976 in favour of the present respondent no. 1, and the said will was delivered to her on 29.03.2009. It is a specific contention in the plaint that she was told that the estate, including the suit property of the deceased Eswaramurthy Gounder was already encumbered in favour of third parties without the knowledge of the plaintiff (present respondent no. 1), immediately after the execution of the unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, at the instance of his sons, who wrongfully received the entire proceedings of the sale. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, present respondent no. 1 herein has further averred that the deceased father of the plaintiff was not well at the time of alleged disposal of the properties and in fact, he was forcibly taken out of the plaintiff’s house by his sons, who obtained his signature against his will to dispose his properties including the suit property for which the will was executed in favour of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the plaintiff (present __________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20055 of 2022 Page 16 respondent no. 1) has prayed that a decree be passed declaring her as the absolute owner of the suit property, by setting aside the encumbrances created after the unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976 was executed in her favour. It was further prayed that permanent injunction be granted, restraining defendants from alienating the suit property.