Kerala High Court
Ramani vs Janakikutty on 29 September, 2025
RFA. No.339/2014
1
2025:KER:72807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
RFA NO. 339 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2014 IN OS
NO.363 OF 2007 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
RAMANI,
AGED 74 YEARS,
W/O.ARAYALATH PRABHAKARA PANICKER,
"SAISADAN" KORANGATTIL LANE,
SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
JANAKIKUTTY,
AGED 39 YEARS,
W/O. THEKKUTTAIL JAYARAM,
VELAPPAYA VILLAGE, DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680596.
BY ADV SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, THE COURT ON 29.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA. No.339/2014
2
2025:KER:72807
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2025
The plaintiff in O.S. No.363/2007 on the file of the Principal sub
Court, Thrissur is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the
parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Admittedly the plaint A
and B schedule properties belonged to late Prabhakara Panicker, who
died on 15.4.2004. The plaintiff is the second wife of the deceased and
the defendant is the daughter of the deceased in his first marriage. The
first wife of Prabhakar Panicker died on the sixth day of the birth of the
defendant and thereafter he married the plaintiff in the year 1972.
According to the plaintiff, Prabhakara Panicker died intestate and as
such she is entitled to get half share from the plaint schedule property.
In the plaint, the plaintiff further contended that the deceased had not
executed any Will as claimed by the defendant. The Will alleged to have
been executed by Prabhakara Panicker is a concocted document.
Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of
2025:KER:72807
her half share from the plaint schedule properties.
3. The defendant filed a written statement, contending that Mr.
Panicker had executed and registered a Will bequeathing the plaint
schedule property in her favour and as such the plaint schedule
properties are not partible. Therefore, the defendant prayed for
dismissing the suit.
4. The trial court framed three issues. The evidence in the case
consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, DWs 1 and 2, Exhibits
A1 to A6, B1 to B14 and X1. After evaluating the evidence on record,
the trial court held that Exhibit B1 is a Will validly executed by late
Prabhakara Panicker and accordingly dismissed the suit for partition.
Aggrieved by the above decree and judgment of the trial court, the
plaintiff preferred this appeal.
5. Now, the points that arise for consideration are the following:
1) Whether Exhibit B1 is the Will validly executed by
Prabhakara Panicker?
2) Whether the defendant has succeeded in removing the
2025:KER:72807
suspicious circumstances, if any, surrounding Exhibit
B1 Will?
6. Heard Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the
defendant.
7. Admittedly, the defendant is the only daughter of deceased
Prabhakara Panicker, who died on 15.4.2004. On the 6 th day of the birth
of defendant, her mother died and thereafter Prabhakara Panicker
married the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaint schedule properties
belonged to Prabhakara Panicker. While according to the plaintiff,
Prabhakakra Panicker died intestate and as such she is entitled to get
half share from the plaint schedule properties, according to the
defendant, Prabhakara Panicker executed Exhibit B1 Will bequeathing
the plaint schedule properties in her favour and as such the plaint
schedule properties are not partible. Therefore, according to the
defendant, there is no merit in this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would argue that
2025:KER:72807
the deceased Prabhakara Panicker was in good terms with the plaintiff
till his death and as such there was no reason for exonerating her from
inheriting his properties. It was also argued that Prabhakara Panicker
was not in sound state of mind so as to execute such a Will in the year
2000. He has also argued that the defendant, who was residing along
with her husband came to the residence of the deceased in the year 1999
and immediately thereafter in the year 2000 Exhibit B1 was executed,
which according to him is a suspicious circumstances. He would also
argue that DW2, who was a close friend of the defendant along with her
husband, who are the attestors to Exhibit B1, colluded to create such a
Will to help the defendant.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant would
argue that the relationship between the plaintiff and Prabhakara Panicker
was not cordial and Mr. Prabhakara Panicker married the plaintiff only
to look after the defendant, who lost her mother immediately after her
birth. According to the learned counsel, in the year 2002, Mr. Panicker
had executed another document and the validity of the same was not
2025:KER:72807
challenged by the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, there is
absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed
by the trial court.
10. The plaintiff has taken a contention that Mr. Panicker was not
in sound state of mind at the time of executing Exhibit B1 and in her
attempt to prove the said contention, examined PW2, a Doctor attached
to Elite Mission Hospital, Koorkkenchery and produced Exhibit X1
treatment record. From the evidence of PW2 and from Exhibit X1, what
is revealed is that Mr. Panicker was suffering from cardiac problem and
there is no evidence to show that he had any other ailments which
incapacitates him from executing a document like Ext.B1.
11. It is true that from the evidence of PW2, it is revealed that
the Doctor, who treated Mr. Panicker in the Elite Mission Hospital
Koorkkenchery recommended a surgery to him on 22.5.2000. It is also
revealed that the said surgery was not conducted and thereafter he lived
till 15.4.2004. However, from the evidence of PW1 itself, it is revealed
that in the year 2002, Mr. Panicker had assigned 5 cents of property to
2025:KER:72807
another person and the validity of the above assignment is not
challenged by the plaintiff. If he was healthy enough to execute a
document in the year 2002, there is no grounds to suspect his physical
and mental capacity to execute a document like Ext.B1 in the year 2000.
12. Though as per Exhibit B1 Will, no immovable properties
are allotted to the plaintiff, there is provision for payment of Rs.300/-
per month, by the defendant to the plaintiff. In this context, it is also to
be noted that the plaintiff was working as an employee in Oushadhi and
admittedly she is getting pension from her employment. In this context,
it is also to be noted that the plaintiff is only the 2 nd wife of Mr.
Panicker, while the defendant is his only offspring.
13. The defendant as DW1 deposed that the plaintiff was
residing at her place of employment and that she used to reach the
residence of Mr. Panicker only in the evening of Sundays and she
returns to her place of employment in Thrissur in the morning of
Mondays. Further according to her, the plaintiff never looked after the
affairs of her father. During the cross examination, the plaintiff also
2025:KER:72807
admitted that she does not even know the details of all the properties left
behind by Mr.Panicker. She also admitted that her name is not there in
the ration card of Mr. Panicker and that her election identity card is in
different address. The above admission of PW1 substantiates the
evidence of DW1 that the plaintiff was never available at home to look
after the affairs of her father and hence, as requested by the father she
started residing with him.
14. From the evidence of DW2, one of the attestors to Exhibit
B1, it is revealed that on the date of execution of Exhibit B1Will on
31.8.2000, as demanded by Mr.Panicker, she along with her husband
and one Joseph went along with him, in a bus for preparing Exhibit B1.
On the next day, on 01.09.2000, she along with her husband
accompanied Mr. Panicker to the Sub Registrar's Office. According to
her, Mr. Panicker was in a sound health both physically and mentally at
the time of execution of Exhibit B1 on 31.8.2000 and on the date of the
registration on 1.9.2000. She would swear that before the execution of
the Will the scribe read over the same and that Mr. Panicker subscribed
2025:KER:72807
his signature in the Will after understanding its contents in the presence
of herself and her husband and they affixed their signatures in the Will
in the presence of Mr. Panicker. On 1.9.2000, the Sub Registrar read
over the contents of Ext.B1 Will to Mr. Panicker, he admitted the same
and affixed his signature in the presence of herself and her husband and
they also identified Mr. Panicker before the Sub Registrar.
15. Though DW2 was cross examined in detail nothing material
could be brought out to discredit her testimony. Therefore, from the
evidence of DW2, it is revealed that the defendant has succeeded in
proving due execution and registration of Exhibit B1 Will, as required
under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
16. Since the plaintiff is the 2 nd wife of Mr.Panicker, having her
own income and the defendant is his only offspring, who lost her mother
immediately after her birth, it is quite natural that such a father shows
more affection to his daughter. In the above circumstance, the conduct of
the testator in deciding to bequeth his entire immovable properties to his
daughter with a provision for monthly payment to his 2 nd wife cannot be
2025:KER:72807
taken as a suspecious circumstance. In the light of the evidence on
record, it is to be held that there is no suspicious circumstances
surrounding Exhibit B1 Will and as such the trial court was justified in
holding that Exhibit B1 is the last Will duly executed by Mr. Panicker.
Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned
judgment and decree of the trial court, so as to call for any interference.
Points answered accordingly.
17. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Considering the
close relationship between the parties, I order no costs.
All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
