Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2. The defendant, namely Anjalai filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and she would state that the Will dated 16.03.1998, said to have been executed by Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal in favour of Ramalingam, is not a genuine one and she apprehends that it is a forged and fabricated one. It is further averred by the defendant that it is also doubtful whether the deceased Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal personally went to the Registrar Office on 16.03.1998 to execute the Will. It is admitted that the Suit Property is the self acquired property of Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal, however there is no reason or compelling circumstances for her to bequeath the property in favour of Ramalingam as he was not caring or maintaining the deceased during her last days and she was maintained by the defendant only and due to the said fact and love and affection shown by her, Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal executed a Will dated 18.05.1994 in her favour and having come to know of such execution, the plaintiff Ramalingam has created a Will dated 16.03.1998 with a view to deprive her the benefits of the Will. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was aware of the filing of O.P.No.385 of 2002 by the defendant, but he has made a false declaration that no application has been made for the issue of Letters of Administration and the delay in approaching the Court for probating the Will/issuance of Letters of Administration was due to the fact that the plaintiff has created the Will dated 16.03.1998 in his favour and prays for dismissal of the Suit.
3. The pleadings in T.O.S.No.25 of 2005 are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff, namely Anjalai would aver among other things that her mother Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal, during her life time has executed a Will dated 18.05.1994 in her favour, which was registered on 20.05.1994 as Doc.No.93/1994 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office at Kodambakkam in the presence of attesting witnesses namely, Jayanthi and K.Lakshmanan and the said Will was drafted by Thiru.V.C.Rangadurai, Advocate, Chennai and the attesting witnesses are not related to the deceased and their present whereabouts are not known to her and she was not in a position to trace and contact them inspite of her best efforts. It is further averred that Tmt.Dhanabakkiam Ammal-testator of the Will dated 18.05.1994 was in a sound state of mind at the time of execution and registration of Will and it was voluntarily executed and the testator was not subjected to compulsion, coercion, undue influence, threat or force for executing the Will, which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act and the testator has disposed of the property according to her free will and she did not execute the Will or Testament subsequent to the Will dated 18.05.1994 and no person was nominated as the Executor of the said Will. It is further averred that she is only a beneficiary as per the above said Will and she has not bequeathed anything to the respondents/defendants, namely Palani and Ramalingam and also given usual undertaking and prayed for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 18.05.1994.

4. This Court, upon perusal of the pleadings and other materials on record, framed the following issues in T.O.S.No.22 of 2005:

1. Whether the Will dated 16.03.1998 alleged to have been executed by deceased Dhanabakkiam is genuine?
2. Whether the OP and the TOS are barred by limitation?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Letters of Administration?
4.To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
The following issues are framed in T.O.S.No.25 of 2005:
1.Whether the deceased M.Dhanabakkiam Ammal executed the Will dated 18.05.1994 volitionally and voluntarily, bequeathing her property in favour of the petitioner and whether it was duly attested by the witness?

25. Ex.P12-Will came to be executed in favour of the plaintiff on 16.03.1998 wherein the testatrix, namely Dhanabakkiam Ammal would state that at the time of execution, she is under the care and custody of her son, namely Ramalingam and since he is maintaining her properly, she wants to bequeath in his favour and therefore, she executed the said final Will and therefore, cancelled her earlier Will. Insofar as the defendant is concerned, she has given her 15 milch cows in her favour and therefore, she has bequeathed the Suit property to her sons and no purpose will be served by raising objections by her elder son, namely Palani and daughter, namely Anjalai.