K.S.SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. D.YASODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executor, originally filed original petition in O.P.No.614 of 2006 to grant probate of the Will dated 05.05.1968 executed by the testatrix Tmt. Navamani Ammal. The sons and daughters were shown as respondents. As caveat was filed by the daughters, the original petition was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit by order of this Court dated 10.10.2006.

(2.) The deceased Tmt. Navamani Ammal, who is the testatrix, was a resident of Madras and that she possessed all properties, within the State of Tamil Nadu. She had executed the Will on 05.05.1968. The plaintiff is the son of the testatrix and named executor in the said Will. The respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 in the original petition are sons and daughters of the deceased Navamani Ammal. The net amount of the assets is Rs.9,99,000.00. The husband of the testatrix died on 02.11.1972. The respondents 1 to 4 have given their consent for granting probate of the Will and necessary consent affidavits are filed along with the original petition. The plaintiff undertakes to administer the property and credits of the deceased Tmt. Navamani Ammal in any way concerning her Will by paying first her debts and then the legaties therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this court within six months from the date of grant of probate and also render a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. The plaintiff states that having accepted the Will, the respondents 5 to 7 put fourth a claim contrary to the terms of the Will. The plaintiff traced the Will only recently. Hence the plaintiff prays that he may be allowed to prove the Will in common form and has sought for a probate.

(3.) After the original petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit, the defendants filed their written statement on 23.3.2009. At the outset the defendants had stated that the alleged Will put fourth by the Plaintiff is not true and genuine. The defendants had also stated that the deceased Navamani Ammal died intestate and there was no occasion for her to execute any Will and all of a sudden, it is put against the defendants. The defendants had further stated that the Will appears to have been brought about with the help of blank signed sheets left by the deceased and the manner in which the typing has been done and attestation has been effected throw suspicion. The defendants had further stated that the conduct of the plaintiff along with the defendants to mortgage the subject property confirms the factum of intestate death as well as the rights to the defendants. It is not even out of place to mention that even the patta has been mutated in all the names of the legal heirs including the defendants which again only confirms that the deceased did not leave any Will. It is stated that the alleged Will came to light only when a notice was issued for partition of the subject property vide reply notice dated 27.3.2004. Since a rejoinder was sent by the defendants on 24.5.2004 denying the existence of the Will, the plaintiff has chosen to file the petition for probate.