Malliga vs P.Kumaran ...Plaintiff / on 28 November, 2014
● Admittedly, the Will was executed between 12.00 p.m. and 01.00 p.m.
and P.W.3 says that it was executed about the time when it was
registered. The other attesting witness namely P.W.2 would say that
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(md)No.601 of 2006
Kunjarammal executed some document around 3.30 p.m. on that date. If
that is so, what was the document that P.W.2 attested.
● Where the testator fixes only her thumb impression and is found to
suffer from paralysis, it is necessary that the Registering Official shall
make necessary endorsement that he had satisfied himself that the
Executor of the document knew what was being executed as has been
held in Malliga's case (supra). And, this endorsement is absent.
● Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 say that the plaintiff was present throughout. It
has to be noted that the defendant is the widowed daughter-in-law of
Kunjarammal and it is not adequately explained why she had to be
excluded by Kunjarammal especially when she never share any
difference.