T SARVESWARA RAO Vs. T SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for granting Letters of Administration in respect of the Will of Kutumba Sastri executed on 1-8-1990.

(2.) The plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff is the son of Tadimeti Kutumba Sastri and the said Kutumba Sastri died in Madras on 28-2-1992. Kutumba Sastri at the time of his death left property in Madras giving a life interest to his wife T. Seetha Sundari and on her death, to the plaintiff absolutely. The said Seetha Sundari died in Rajamundri on 29-1-1993 whereupon the property devolved on the plaintiff in accordance with the Will, absolutely. The said Will is the last Will and Testament of Tadimeti Kutumba Sastri and was executed in Nagercoil on 1-8-1990. Nobody was appointed as Executor of the Will and the plaintiff as the universal legatee under the Will in respect of the property mentioned in the Will after the life estate granted to the plaintiff's mother, on her death, as the son of the testator seeks to obtain Letters of Administration. The net amount of the said assets, after deducting all items which the plaintiff is by law allowed to deduct is only of the value of Rs. 2, 60,000/-. T. Seetha Sundari had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Viswa Hindu Parishad as stipulated by the Testator and the balance of Rs.50,000/- could not be paid since Viswa Hindu Parishad had been banned. He undertakes to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within 6 months from the date of the grant of letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff prays for granting Letters of Administration with the Will.

(3.) The averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows : The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the Testator had executed the Will which is the subject matter of this proceeding. Kutumba Sastri had duly executed a Will at Madras on 28-2-1992 and in terms thereof the earlier Will of 1-8-1990 purportedly executed by the Testator was cancelled and the properties of the testator were bequeathed to his wife T. Sita Sundari. In the aforesaid Will, it was recited that the sons of the testator may be considered equally in so far as the sharing of the estate of the testator is concerned. The testator had died on 28-2-1992 and subsequent to his death his wife to whom, the testator bequeathed all his property both movable and immovable also expired on 29-1-1993. Subsequent to her death disputes arose amongst the legal heirs of the deceased testator in regard to the sharing of his assets and a family arrangement was entered on 3-6-1993 and the legal heirs of the testator were signatories to the above stated Deed of Family Arrangement. The defendant understands that in terms of the Will which is the subject matter of this proceeding, the testator's share in the partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. East Coast Structurals is allegedly bequeathed to the plaintiff and that the other sons and daughters of the testator were not entitled to a claim in the said partnership firm. The defendant submitted that at the pain of reiteration, that in the teeth of the fact that the testator had executed a Will on 28-2-1992 in terms of which the earlier Will dated 1-8-1990 was cancelled, any grant made under the earlier Will dated 1-8-1990 in regard to the assets relating to the partnership firm in favour of the plaintiff herein would under law be deemed to be abrogated and as a sequel thereto, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim an absolute and in exclusive right of ownership over the above mentioned property and as a consequence thereof all the legal heirs of the testator would be entitled to claim a share from the testator's share in the assets of the firm in equal measure. Since the plaintiff did not produce the records pertaining to the partnership firm to ascertain the contents of the said documents, the Honourable Court may direct the plaintiff to produce the entire records relating to the partnership firm M/s East Coast Structurals to determine the entitle ments of the legal heirs of the deceased testator in the assets of the aforesaid partnership firm. The Will dated 1-8-1990 should have been executed by the testator when he was not in a sound and disposing state of mind and in any event the earlier Will dated 1-8-1990 was superseded by the execution of the Will dated 28-2-1992 by the testator. For the reasons stated above, the suit has got to be dismissed.