Madras High Court
N.Chandrasekaran vs N.Rangabashyam on 16 May, 2024
TOS.No28 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.05.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
TOS.No.28 of 2020
N.Chandrasekaran, ...Plaintiff
...Vs...
1.N.Rangabashyam,
2.N.Vinayagam alias N.Vedha Vinayagam
3.S.K.Vasanthi,
4.K.Mohanapriya,
5.G.Hariharan,
6.G.Ramachandran,
7.G.Sasikala,
8.G.Kandaswamy,
9.G.Kamatchi,
10.Valli,
11.Deivanai ...Defendants
Prayer:- This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 232
and 276 of the Indian Succession Act and Order 25 Rule 5 of the Original
Side Rules, for the relief as stated therein.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Tamizh Selvi
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
For Defendants : Mr.R. Ragavendran for D1 to D9
(For M/s.R.Murali)
: D10 & D11 are set exparte
*******
JUDGMENT
This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 232
and 276 of the Indian Succession Act and Order 25 Rule 5 of the Original
Side Rules, to grant of Probate.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is as follows:-
(i) The Plaintiff, the defendants 2 & 3 are the sons of the
deceased P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan. The 4th defendant is the
Daughter in Law, the defendants 5, 6, 9, & 11 are the Grand Daughters, and
the defendants 7, 8 & 10 are the Grand Sons of the deceased P.Nataraja
Naicker alias P.Natarajan who died on 02.12.2002 at bearing Old No. 140,
New No.347, Paper Mills Road, Peravallur, Chennai- 600 082 within the
state of Tamil Nadu and within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The
said WILL was duly executed P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan,
registered as Doc.No. 114 of 1996 in the SRO, Sembium, in the presence of
witnesses whose names appear at the foot thereof.
(ii)The deceased P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan bequeathed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
said property to his wife Shenbagavalli who shall be entitled to all his
estate both movable and immovable property and his entire house, ground
and premises bearing Old No.140, New No.347, Paper Mills Road,
Peravallur, Chennai- 600 082 and effects thereof during her life time
including the operation of his Bank Account, if any, as life time legatee of
his WILL and that after her life time his four sons ie, 1.N.Chandrasekran,
2.N.Kalayanasundram, 3.N.Rangabashyam, 4.N.Vinayagam
@Vedhavinayagam, shall be entitled absolute and forever all that
bequeathed above to his said wife as her life time estate. He has appointed
one of his sons named N.Chandrasekaran, the Petitioner herein as Executor
in the said WILL. The deceased P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan has
not made any provision for his eldest son N.Gnanasambandan under the
said WILL.
(iii).The writing here undo annexed now shown to the Petitioner and
marked 'A' is the last WILL and Testament of the said P.Nataraja Naicker
alias P.Natarajan and was duly executed by him at Chennai on 15.07.1996
in the presence of the witnesses whose names appear at the foot thereof.
The said WILL is a registered document. The petitioner is filing affidavit of
one of the attesting witnesses who personally knew the deceased P.Nataraja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
Naicker alias P.Natarajan and his signature in the said WILL.
(iv)That Shenbagavalli, wife of P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan
died intestate on 02.03.2017. One of the son of P. Nataraja Naicker alias
P.Natarajan, N.Kalayanasundram died intestate on 28.07.2018, consequent
to his death, the 3rd to 5th Respondents mentioned below are equally to
inherit his share in the property mentioned in the WILL.
1. S.K. Vasanthi, (3rd Respondent) Wife of N.Kalyanasundaram
2. K.Mohanapriya (4th Respondent)Daughter of N.Kalyanasundaram
3. K.Mohanasundari, (5th Respondent)Daughter of N.Kalyanasundaram
(v)That N.Gnanasambandan, eldest son of P.Nataraja Naicker alias
Natarajan died on 04.09.2000 leaving behind his wife G.Sundari, three
sons, two daughters, ie., G.Hariharan, G.Ramachandran, G.Sasikala, and
G.Kamatchi, and that G.Sundari wife Gnanasambandan died 29.03.2007.
(vi). That the next kin and kith of the deceased P.Nataraja Naicker
alias P.Natarajan, and N.Kalayanasundram are 1. N.Chandrasekaran
(Petitioner herein)-Son, 2. N.Rangabashyam (1st Respondent herein)-Son,
3. N. Vinayagam alias N. Vedha Vinayagam, (2nd Respondent herein)-
Son, 4. S.K.Vasanthi W/o.Late.N.Kalyanasundarm (3rd Respondent
herein)-Daughter in-law, 5. K.Mohanapriya D/o.Late.N.Kalyanasundarm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
(4th Respondent herein)-Grand Daughter, 6. K.Mohanasundari,
D/o.Late.N.Kalyanasundarm (5th Respondent herein)-Grand Daughter, 7.
G. Hariharan, S/o.Late.N.Gnanasambandan (6th Respondent herein)-Grand
Son, 8.G. Ramachandran, S/o.Late.N.Gnanasambandan (7th Respondent
herein)-Grand Son, 9. G.Sasikala, S/o.Late.N.Gnanasambandan (8th
Respondent herein) -Grand Daughter, 10. G.Kandaswamy,
S/o.Late.N.Granasambandan (9th Respondent herein)-Grand Son, 11.
G.Kamatchi, S/o.Late.N.Gnanasambandan (10th Respondent herein)-
Grand Daughter.
vii). That after the life time of Shenbagavalli, the sons of P.Nataraja
Naicker alias Natarajan are entitled to inherit the property as per the WILL
dated 15.07.1996 and after the death of one of his sons ie
N.Kalayansundaram, the Respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to inherit his share
equally as per Hindu Succession Act. All the beneficiaries under the WILL
of the deceased are aware of the existence of the WILL. All the next kith
and kin of deceased P.Nataraja Naicker alias P.Natarajan other persons
interested are impleaded as parties in the WILL and there is no other next
kith and kin or other persons to the WILL to be impleaded. The parents of
the deceased P.Nataraja Naicker alias Natarajan viz. Poongavanam and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
Nagammal predeceased him.
(viii) The amount of assets, which is likely come into the hands of
the Plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- and
the net amount of the said assets, after deducing all the items, which the
Plaintiff, is by law allowed to deduct, is only of the value of
Rs.1,55,00,000/-. The petitioner undertakes to duly administer the property
and the credit of the said deceased Testator, in any way concerning his
Will, by paying first his debts and then, the legacies therein bequeathed so
far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof
and exhibit the same in the Court, within six months from the date of grant
of Probate, with the Will annexed to the Plaintiffs and also to render a true
account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date.
No application has been made to any District Court or delegate or to any
other High Court for probate or any Will of the said deceased or Letters of
Administration with or without the Will annexed to his properties and
credits. Hence, this Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, seeking the
reliefs, as stated above.
3.The case of the Defendants D1 to D9, as set out in the written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
statement, is as follows:-
(i)It is false that late P.Natarajan executed Will dated 15.07.1996
registered as Doc. No.114 of 1996 in the office of Sub Registrar, Sembium
and it is also false that the Schedule Property was bequeathed to his wife
late Shenbagavalli, who was entitled to all his estate both movable and
immovable property including the operation of his bank account during her
lifetime as lifetime legatee and after her lifetime, the Plaintiff, Defendants
Nos. 1 & 2 and N.Kalayanasundram. Originally the schedule properties and
other properties belonged to one Mrs.Nagamammal, who is the mother of
late Mr.P.Natarajan Naicker @ P.Natarajan and the said Mrs.
Nagamammal died intestate leaving behind 1.Mr.P.Natarajan Naicker @
P.Natarajan, 2.P.Veeraraghava Naicker & 3.P. Govindaminal. The estates
of the said Mrs.Nagamammal were bifurcated among the legal heirs in and
by a Partition Deed dated 07.07.1962 registered as Doc. No.2270 of 1962
and in the said partition, late P.Natarajan was allotted with the Schedule
Property, who was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same.
(ii)The late P.Natarajan resided in the Schedule Property along with
his family for several decades. After marriage, 1. Valli and 2. Deivanai,
Defendants Nos. 10 & 11 moved along with their husband and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
1.Kalayasundaram, 2.Vedhavinayagam, 2nd Defendant and
3.Gnansambandan resided separately with their family. Whereas, the 1st
Defendant and the Plaintiff herein continued to co-habitate in the Schedule
Property along with their parents ie. late P.Natarajan Naicker @
P.Natarajan and late Shenbagavalli. The 1st Defendant and his family
resided in a portion of the Schedule Property and the Plaintiff and his
family resided with their parents ie. late P. Natarajan Naicker @
P. Natarajan and late Shenbagavalli in a separate portion of the Schedule
Property. The said late P.Natarajan Naicker @ P.Natarajan and late
Shenbagavalli were often visited by the Defendants, Kalayanasundaram
and Gnansambandan, who collectively took care of every need of the late
P.Natarajan Naicker @ P.Natarajan and late Shenbagavalli. Though the
Defendants, Kalayanasundaram and Gnansambandan were living
separately but still, had a family bond with late P.Natarajan Naicker @
P.Natarajan and late Shenbagavalli. During the lifetime of the late
P.Natarajan @ P.Natarajan Naicker, he would always repeat and announce
that the Schedule Property is ancestral and after his lifetime, the schedule
property and other articles must be divided equally among his sons and
daughters, which was also endorsed by his wife late Shenbagavalli. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
said late P.Natarajan was prone to various illnesses at the evening of his
life. The Defendants took care of the late P.Natarajan @ Natarajan Naicker.
Due to the prolonged illness and old age, he was not in a stable state of
mind and always needed the assistance of another to carry out his day to
day affairs. The said late P.Natarajan was unable to recognise and recollect
any persons. Hence, the defendants were taking abundant care of late P.
Natarjan @ P. Natarajan Naicker, who expired on 02.12.2002. After the
expiry of late P. Natarajan, the defendants sought for partition of the estates
of late P.Natarajan @ Natarajan Naicker but the same was refused by the
Plaintiff herein citing one or other reasons. The said late. Mrs
Shenbagavalli also advised Plaintiff to agree to the partition but the same
was refused by Plaintiff. Hence, on the said dispute, the 1st Defendant
along with his mother late Shenbagavalli moved out of the Schedule
Property and the said late Shenbagavalli started to reside with the 1st
Defendant in the aforesaid address. Likewise, Plaintiff moved out of the
Schedule Property and started to reside in his above mentioned address.
The 1st Defendant alone took care of his mother late Shenbagavalli till her
death and Plaintiff neither visited nor supported his mother late
Shesbagavalli till her death. After the demise of late Mrs. Shenbagavalli,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
the Defendants proposed for partition of the schedule property but the
Plaintiff refused the same. At the said juncture, Plaintiff claimed that the
said late Mr.P.Natarajan has executed a WILL dated 15.07.1996 but
refused to divulge any information of copies of the same. Hence, the
Defendants sought legal advice for the partition of the Schedule Property
and sniffing the said fact, the Plaintiff herein hurriedly has filed the present
plaint for probate before this Hon'ble Court. The WILL dated 15.07.1996
was not executed by late P.Natarajan @ P.Natarajan Naicker and the same
was created by the Plaintiff herein to swallow the Schedule Property for his
personal gain. During his lifetime, the late P.Natarajan never whispered
about the execution of any WILL to any person and even to his wife late
Shenbagavalli, who was also not aware of the said fact. Further, late
P.Natarajan was suffering from various ailments and on the same, he was
not in a sound state of mind. Hence, late P.Natarajan would have never
executed the WILL out of free consent or own willingness. The said WILL
is nothing but a foul play orchestrated by Plaintiff herein.
(iii)Even assuming without admitting the fact that the WILL dated
15.07.1996 is legit, late Mrs.Shenbagavalli was granted life estate under the
said WILL, who was also entitled to use and benefit during her lifetime all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
the property, assets and credits of both movable and immovables of late
P.Natarajan but late Mrs. Shenbagavalli was neither informed about the
said execution of WILL dated 15.07.1996 nor granted any benefit from the
estates of late P.Natarajan till death of her demise. The said alleged
execution of the WILL dated 15.07.1996 was not known to any persons
even too late Mrs.Shenbagavalli, who had a cordial relationship with her
husband late P.Natarajan till his death. Thus, the said WILL dated
15.07.1996 would not have existed during late Mrs Shenbagavalli's
lifetime, which been authored by the Plaintiff for his own benefit, after the
demise of late Mrs.Shenbagavalli, to cheat and deprive the rights of the
Defendants Nos.5 to 11 of their share of the Schedule Property.
(iv) The Plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the vital facts, late Mr.P.
Natarajan is succeeded by 1. Shenbagavalli, his wife 2. Chandrasekaran,
the Plaintiff. 3. Rangabashyam, the 1st Defendant. 4. Vinayagam @ Vedha
Vinayagam, 2nd Defendant, 5.Valli, 10th Defendant, 6.Deivanai, 11th
Defendant, 7. Kalayasundaram, who is succeeded by the Defendants 3 to 4
and K.Mohanasundari and 8.Gnanasambandan, who is succeeded by the
Defendants 5 to 9.
(v)The said execution and existence of the said WILL was never
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
brought to the knowledge of the Defendants and the said fact was also not
known to late Shenbagavalli, wife of late P.Natarajan. Further, Plaintiff
failed to explain the delay of more than 17 years in revealing the said
WILL and filing the present petition for probate before this Hon'ble Court
and on the same, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
(1) Whether the Will dated 15.07.1996 allegedly executed by
Mr.P.Natarajan Naicker @ P.Natarajan is genuine or not?
(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek any relief in the present
suit filed on 29.04.2019 based on the Will allegedly executed
by of Mr.P.Natarajan Naicker @ P.Natarajan, who died on
02.12.2002, which is barred by law of limitation or not?
(3)To what relief the parties are entitled?
5. On the side of the Plaintiffs, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked and on the side of the Defendants, neither
witnesses were examined nor documents were marked.
6. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either
side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the
plaintiff's father P.Nataraja Naicker @ P. Natarajan in his Will dated
15.07.1996 had given life estate to his Wife Mrs. Shenbagavalli and
therefore, only after the life time of Mrs. Shenbagavalli who died on
02.03.2017, the plaintiff had to apply for probate of the Will. Hence,
plaintiff being a senior citizen, has filed the present petition in April 2019.
8.It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
that the deceased P.Nataraja Jaicker @ P.Natarajan has bequeathed the suit
property in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 and
Kalyanasundaram (Since deceased). The defendants 1 & 2 as beneficiaries
mentioned in the Will and the defendants 3 & 4 as legal heirs of
N.Kalyanasundaram (since deceased) who is also mentioned another
beneficiary in the Will are not entitled to question the genuineness of the
Will. Further, the plaintiff has proved the Will dated 15.07.1996 registered
as document No.114 of 1996 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Sembiam by
way of oral and documentary evidence. Vide Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
and Documents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Hence, he prays this Court to grant of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
Probate in favour of the Plaintiff.
9. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that due
to the prolonged illness and old age, the deceased P.Nataraja Jaicker @
P.Natarajan was not in a stable state of mind and always needed the
assistance of another to carry out his day to day affairs. Under such
circumstances, the said Will said to have been executed by the deceased
P.Nataraja Jaicker @ P.Natarajan is not genuine and forged one. Further,
Plaintiff failed to explain the delay of more than 17 years in revealing the
said WILL and filing the present petition for probate before this Hon'ble
Court.
10. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
defendants that mere registration of WILL cannot be presumed to be valid
merely because it is registered. Under Section 63 of the Succession Act,
1965, the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom
has seen the Testator sign or affix his mark to the WILL, in the presence
and by direction of the Testator. Further, Section 68 of the Evidence Act,
1872 mandates that WILL need to be proved by the attesting witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
Since the Plaintiff have failed to prove the alleged WILL as mandated
under Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1965 and Section 68 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, the original suit is liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the defendants would further submit
that the stamp papers of the WILL were purchased on 26.02.1996 and the
alleged WILL claimed to be executed by the Testator on 15.07.1996. There
is absolutely no necessity to purchase the stamp papers on 26.02.1996 and
execute the alleged WILL after 5 months i.e. 15.07.1996. Hence, it is very
evident that the alleged WILL was not executed by the Testator i.e.
Mr.P.Natarajan Naicker @P.Natrajan and the same was created and forged
by the Plaintiff herein. Since the Plaintiff has failed to remove all the
above suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged WILL, the
original suit is liable to be dismissed.
Issue Nos.1 to 3:
12. Even though the defendants have contended that the Will dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
15.07.1996 said to have been executed by P.Nataraja Naicker @ P.
Natarajan is not genuine and forged one since he was not in a stable state of
mind and always needed the assistance of another to carry out his day to
day affairs and the same is averred in the Written statement, they have
failed to prove the same by letting in oral and documentary evidence
entering into the witness box. However, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1
and P.W.2 were examined and marked the Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 to prove the Will
dated 15.07.1996.
13.It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the
date of Stamp papers which were not in serial number, was mentioned
before the date of registration of the said Will. Merely because of the stamp
papers were not in serial number and it was purchased before the
registration of Will dated 15.07.1996, it cannot be considered as forged
one. Further, the Will dated 15.07.1996 was registered before the SRO,
Sembiam as Document No.114 of 1996.
14.It is proved on perusal of affidavit and evidence of PW.2, that
he was present along with another attesting witness and both saw the
testator, putting his signature in the Will and the testator saw them putting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
their signatures as witnesses and thereby he has also spoken about the
attestation of the document, in accordance with law. The evidence of
P.W.2 would also go to show that the testator was in a sound and disposing
state of mind and was in a good health, at the time of execution of Ex.P1
Will. The said evidence of PW2 would prove the attestation, execution of
the Will and also the sound and disposing state of mind of the testator at the
time of execution of Ex.P1 Will. Hence, the issue no.1 is answered in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Accordingly, issue no.1
is answered.
15. Even though the learned counsel for the defendants raised the
question of limitation period, the plaintiff has stated the sufficient reasons
in filing the petition for granting probate in the petition itself and it can be
condoned. Hence, the question of limitation does not arise. Thus, Issue
No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.
16. Since the defendants have not proved by way of oral and
documentary evidence that the said will is forged one and the Testamentary
jurisdiction is invoked only for the purpose of deciding the proof of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
Will in order to grant Probate, considering the oral and documentary
evidence let in by the plaintiff, the said Will is proved, hence, this Court is
inclined to grant Probate in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
entitled to get relief as prayed for. Accordingly, issue no.3 is answered in
favour of the plaintiff.
17. In the result, the TOS is decreed as prayed for.
16.05.2024
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Lbm
List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-
1. P.W.1 – Mr.N. Chandrasekaran
2. P.W.2 – Mr. Mr. S. Bakthavatchalu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Defendant:-
--Nil--
List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1.Ex.P1 is The Original Will executed by my father P. Nataraja Naicker
alias P. Natarajan dated 15.07.1996. (Safe Custody) (Marked through
PW1)
2.Ex.P2 is The original death certificate of P. Nataraja Naicker alias P.
Natarajan dated 02.12.2002. (Marked through PW1)
3. Ex.P3 is The death certificate D. Shenbagavalli dated 02.03.2017.
(Marked through PW1)
4.Ex.P4 is The 1" signature of the attesting witness is mine. (Marked
through PW2)
5.Ex.P5 is At the time of registration of the Will I identified the executor
for that I signed as 2nd witness in the Will. (Marked through PW2).
List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Defendant:-
--Nil--
16.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS.No28 of 2020
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Lbm
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
16.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
