Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.In order to substantiate their case, on the side of the minor petitioners, the mother of the minor petitioners examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining three other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and registered Will, dated 21.03.2007, was marked as Ex.P.1. On the side of the objectors, the second Objector Raghunandhan examined himself as R.W.1, besides examining two other witnesses as R.W.2 & R.W.3 and eight documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.8, including the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 as Ex.R.6.

8.The Trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence both oral and documentary, has made a detailed discussion with regard to the Wills produced on either side and made an observation that the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 (Ex.R.6) produced by the objectors cannot be given much importance and further held that the registered Will dated 21.03.2007 (Ex.P.1) produced on the side of the petitioners is true and genuine Will executed by late Lakshmanan and thus, negatived the case projected by the objectors based on the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the said GWOP on a finding that there is no need or necessity for the petitioners for putting up construction and the documents produced on the side of the petitioners would show that there are residential houses available to the petitioners and the petition mentioned property is situated in prime locality, within the corporation limit of Erode and the value of the land is also likely to be increased every year. Thus, the Trial Court has declined to grant permission to the petitioners to sell the property and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition, the petitioners have filed by the present appeal in C.M.A.No.2155 of 2013. The Objectors have filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.2363 of 2013 challenging the observation made by the Trial Court with regard to the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008.

31.Question No.(III) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the objectors that it is an application filed by the mother of the minors seeking permission of the Court to sell the minors' property. Under such circumstances, the Court below ought to have dealt with the question only with regard to granting permission to the mother of the minors to permit her to sell the petition scheduled property. In fact, the Court below has framed a issue with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to seek permission of the Court to sell the petition scheduled property. But, while dealing with the said question, the Court below, by discussing the Wills produced on either side has observed that the registered Will dated 21.03.2007 marked on the side of the petitioners as Ex.P.1 alone is genuine document and the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 marked on the side of the objectors as Ex.R.6 is surrounded by suspicion. According to the learned counsel for the objectors, the said observation made by the Court below is totally unwarranted because the same is beyond the scope of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

32.But, on perusal of the materials available on record, I find that it is the case of the petitioners that the subject property was bequeathed to the minors by their paternal grandfather by way registered Will dated 21.03.2007. The objectors defended their case, by examining the three witnesses and marking eight documents, including the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 as Ex.R.6. According to the learned counsel for the objectors, the earlier registered Will dated 21.03.2007 executed by the late Gopalakrishnan in favour of the minor petitioners was subsequently revoked by way of unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 executed in favour of the objectors. But, the objectors have not mentioned anything about the said unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008 in their objection petition. But, only during the cross-examination, they produced the unregistered Will dated 17.03.2008. The attestors to both the Wills were examined before the Court below. Only in view of the evidence adduced on either side, the Court below was forced to discuss about the Wills produced on either side, since both parties are claiming right over the subject property based on the Wills. Therefore, in my considered opinion, observation with regard to the Wills was invited by the objectors themselves by producing the Will and also examining the attestors to the Will. The Court below, after discussing about the Wills, has come to the conclusion that the Court is not in a position to go into the details with regard to the rights of the parties, since the petition itself is for limited purpose of seeking permission to sell the property of the minors. Both the parties have not even sought to establish their right over the subject property on the basis of the Wills. Since the Court below has not arrived at any conclusion with regard to the right of the parties over the subject property, now absolutely there is no need to set aside the observation made by the Court below on the Wills produced on either side, since the said observation was made by the Court below only based on the evidence adduced before it. Only if there is any finding which is not based on the evidence, the question of setting aside the same will arise.