Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 157 (MAD)

Antony Joseph Anand v. Williams James

2017-01-11

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendants herein. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:- The case of the plaintiffs is that one Nicholas, uncle of the plaintiff died as a bachelor on 08.06.2001. The said Nicholas executed a Will dated 09.04.2001 bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 4, 5 and 8. Hence, the plaintiff seeks letters of Administration. 3. The brief facts of the case of the 12th defendant and adopted by the defendants 10, 11, 13 to 15 are as follows:- The defendants deny the existence of the Will. The plaintiff's uncle has no title to the property. He was never in sound health and disposing state of mind. He was a bachelor and was under the control of the plaintiff. The Will cannot be acted upon due to the existence of fraud, coercion and under undue influence of the plaintiffs. There is a previous Will of Anthony Ammal and the parties have acted upon the said Will. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, on 07.3.2008, this Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the testamentary document, viz., the Will dated 09.04.2011 registered as Document No.19 of 2001, before the Joint SRO II, Thousand Lights, Chennai, executed by the deceased testator Mr. J. Nocholas is valid in law? (ii) Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to Letters of Administration as prayed for? (iii) Whether the Will produced by the plaintiff is true, valid and genuine? (iv) Whether the Will produced by the plaintiff is the last Will and testament and (v) To what relief are the parties entitled? 5. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 09/04/2001 Original Will 2. P-2 12/06/2001 Original Death Certificate of J. Nicholas Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs: P.W.1. - Antony Joseph P.W.2. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 09/04/2001 Original Will 2. P-2 12/06/2001 Original Death Certificate of J. Nicholas Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs: P.W.1. - Antony Joseph P.W.2. - P. Kumar P.W.3 - D. Nixon Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants D.W.1 - D. Rajan @ D.R. Rajan 6. Heard, Mr. J. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Though the 14th defendant was examined as D.W.1 and filed proof affidavit, thereafter, he did not appear for cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence was closed. D.W.1 not chosen to submit himself for cross-examination. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Will is a registered one and registered in the presence of witnesses in accordance with law as per Ex.P.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clinchingly establish the execution and attestation besides testamentary capacity of the testator. Hence, submitted that the letters of administration may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant side remained absent. 8. In the light of the above pleadings, this Court has to answer the issues. 9. Issue Nos.1 to 5 : The plaintiff is the propounder of the Will dated 09.04.2001. The Will is a registered one. The Will is executed by one Nicholas on 09.04.2001 and registered on 23.04.2001 and attested by two witnesses who have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. It is admitted by both sides that the said Nicholas died as a bachelor. He has bequeathed his property in favour of his brother's sons namely the plaintiff, 1, 4, 5 to 8th defendants, who are sons of his brother. P.W.1, propounder of the Will has been examined as P.W.1. His entire cross-examination has been perused. Nothing has been established in the cross-examination to show that the Will was executed under coercion or under undue influence over the testator. Except suggestion that the said Nicholas was old and sick at the relevant point of time, no other suspicious circumstances were brought against the Will during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. 10. P.W.2 one Kumar and P.W.3 Nixon have attested the Will as witnesses. P.W.2 in his evidence has categorically stated about the execution of the Will and his attestation of the Will. 10. P.W.2 one Kumar and P.W.3 Nixon have attested the Will as witnesses. P.W.2 in his evidence has categorically stated about the execution of the Will and his attestation of the Will. P.W.3, another attester of the Will has stated that in their presence, the Will has been executed and he, as an attester has signed in the Will. In the entire cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3, no circumstances, whatsoever, was established by the defendants against the execution of the Will. The witnesses have also spoken that they have attested the Will on the date of execution of the Will and also their presence at the time of registration. 11. Testamentary capacity of the executor of the Will has been clearly spoken by the P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and the Will is a registered one. The evidence of attesting witnesses, clearly establishes the execution of the Will as required by law. The execution of the Will as well as the attestation of the Will has been proved in the manner known to law. Once, the execution and attestation of Will has been proved, it is for the defendants to establish the allegation of fraud and undue influence in execution of the testament. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing has been established to show that the Will has been executed under undue influence, fraud, and coercion. 12. Similarly, D.W.1 has filed proof affidavit. But he was not present before this Court and withstood for cross-examination. The above fact clearly show that the defendants are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Except the defendants 10 to 15, others have not even filed written statement and remained exparte. In view of the above facts, the Will has been proved in the manner known to law and the plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration and the issues are answered accordingly. 13. In the result, (i). The suit is decreed. (ii). The Letters of Administration, having the effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu, shall be issued in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property bequeathed to him in the Will dated 09.4.2001. (iii). The plaintiff is directed to duly administer the estate of the deceased. (iv). The plaintiff shall execute a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S-II), High Court, Madras. (v). (iii). The plaintiff is directed to duly administer the estate of the deceased. (iv). The plaintiff shall execute a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S-II), High Court, Madras. (v). The plaintiff are further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year. (vi). No costs.