Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 231 (MAD)

G. Ragupathy v. G. Ragupathy

2017-01-24

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 father of the petitioner Gopalasamy died on 26.10.1982. He has executed the Will dated 06.06.1979 in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said Gopalasamy had 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hence, prayed for grant of Letters of Administration. 3. The brief facts of the case of the defendants are as follows:- It is the contention of the first defendant that delay in filing the Letters of Administration has not been properly explained. The family members of Gopalasamy and others were not informed about the alleged Will. The alleged Will was bought into existence by the erstwhile wife of this defendant in collusion with the plaintiff. The 'B' schedule property was already settled in favour of the second defendant. The alleged Will is not a genuine one. The said Gopalasamy had no testamentary capacity to execute the Will. 4. The second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant filed the written statement stating that Will dated 06.06.1979 was executed by her late father-in-law. The only contention in her written statement is that she was permitted to live in the 'B' schedule property and derive the income from the same. It is also contended by her that delay in obtaining the Letters of Administration has not been properly explained. Letters of Administration to the first defendant. 5. The fifth defendant filed the written statement stating that the Will has come into existence under suspicious circumstances. His father esd always sympathetic to the family members. Hence, opposed the Will. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, on 07.3.2008, this Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed? (ii) Whether the Will dated 06.06.1979 is genuine? (iii) Relief and cost. 7. On the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P13 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 to D.4 were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff: S.No Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 06/06/1979 Registered Will 2. On the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P13 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 to D.4 were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff: S.No Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 06/06/1979 Registered Will 2. P-2 22/04/1997 Original Death Certificate of E.Gopalasamy Pillai 3. P-3 13.09.2006 Caveat Petition 4. P-4 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of G.Govindaswamy 5. P-5 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of G.Venkatesan 6. P-6 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of G.Ramanujam 7. P-7 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of G.Chandran 8. P-8 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of A.Saraswathi 9. P-9 15.03.1995 Consent affidavit of G.Manivannan 10. P-10 01.04.2011 Consent affidavit of Rajeswari 11. P-11 01.04.2011 Consent affidavit of R.Bhagyalakshmi 12. P-12 -- Certified copy of the registered Will 13. P-13 15.05.1981 Certified copy of the registered settlement deed Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs: P.W.1. - G.Raghupathy P.W.2. - S.D.Chandra Mouli Exhibits produced on the side of the first Defendant : S.No Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. D-1 -- Xerox copy of the marriage invitation of Padmanabhan with Muthulakshmi 2. D-2 -- Photo copy of true extract of the marriage register between Padmanaban and Muthulakshmi 3. D-3 -- Photograph 4. D-4 -- Photograph Witnesses examined on the side of the first defendant D.W.1 “G.Padmanabhan 8. Heard, Mr.K.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the first defendant. 9. Issue Nos.1 to 3 : The petitioner is the propounder of the Will of his late father Gopalasamy. The Will is marked as Ex.P.1. On a careful perusal of the Will, the same clearly indicate that it is a registered Will. The Testator Gopalasamy has made a recital in the Will that though he had 7 sons and three daughters, all other sons were already given property. Therefore, he has bequeathed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and also the second defendant for her life, thereafter vested reminder to his male grand children. 10. To prove the execution and attestation of the Will, P.W.2 one Chandramouli was examined. P.W.2 in his evidence clearly stated that at the time of execution of the Will, the testator signed the Will in his presence and he was in sound disposing state of mind. 10. To prove the execution and attestation of the Will, P.W.2 one Chandramouli was examined. P.W.2 in his evidence clearly stated that at the time of execution of the Will, the testator signed the Will in his presence and he was in sound disposing state of mind. P.W.2 and other attesting witness one Ramanujam was also present while the testator affixing his signature in the Will. Both the testator and the attesting witnesses signed in each of their presence. In his cross examination also he had ascertained signing of the Will by the testator in his presence and also another witness Ramanujam. In the entire cross examination of P.W.2 nothing has been elicited to suspect the will registered by the said Gopalasamy. His entire evidence clearly prove the fact that the will was executed by Gopalasamy while he was in sound disposing state of mind on his own volition. 11. The first defendant, who was also beneficiary under the Will in respect of the 'B' schedule property till her life time, has not cross examined P.W. 2. In her written statement, she has admitted the execution of the Will by her father-in-law. Ex.P.4 is the consent affidavit of another son of Gopalasamy. Ex.P.5 is he consent affidavit of G.Veerasamy another son of Gopalasamy. Ex.P.6 is also a similar consent affidavit of another son G.Ramanujam. Ex.P.7 is the consent affidavit G.Chandran another son of Gopalasamy. Ex.P.8 is the consent affidavit of Saraswathi, daughter of Gopalasamy. Ex.P.9 one Manivannan, fifth defendant has also given consent affidavit to the effect that the Will was executed by his father. Ex.P.10, one Rajeswari, W/o.Ramachandran, one of the son Gopalasamy and she has no objection for grant of Letters of Administration to the plaintiff. The fourth defendant has also given consent affidavit which can be seen from Ex.P.11. 12. Though the first defendant has opposed the Will in his pleadings, D.W.1 in his cross examination, has admitted the genuineness of the Will. From the above documents and particularly, the evidence of P.W.2, the attesting witness, the plaintiff has proved the execution and attestation of the Will as contemplated under law. In the Will itself, the plan has been attached and 'A' schedule property has been bequeathed to the plaintiff and 'B' schedule property has been bequeathed to the second defendant for her life and common passage also clearly mentioned in between the two properties. In the Will itself, the plan has been attached and 'A' schedule property has been bequeathed to the plaintiff and 'B' schedule property has been bequeathed to the second defendant for her life and common passage also clearly mentioned in between the two properties. When the Will has been established as per law, there is no difficulty in granting Letters of Administration. Of course, there is some delay in filing the application for grant of Letters of Administration. The plaintiff himself in his pleadings has explained for such delay. Therefore, the Will itself found to be true and genuine. Mere approaching the Court with a delay without knowing its implications, such delay cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiff. 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 06.06.1979. (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.