IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 AS.No. 700 of 1997(E) --------------------- OS.1483/1991 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------ 1.SOBHA, W/O.NAMBIATHU LATE SEKHARAN, KANIAMBAL DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2.PRIYA (MINOR), AGED 17, D/O.SOBHANA, -DO- 3.PRIJI (MINOR), AGED 14, -DO- 4. JIJI (MINOR), AGED 11, -DO- MINOR APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER FIRST APPELLANT. (IT IS RECORDED THAT THE APPELLANTS 2, 3 AND 4 IN THE APPEAL ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED R1 VIDE ORDER IN I.A.532/01 DT. 16.12.2005) (THE APPELLANTS 2,3 & 4 WHO ARE SHOWN AS MINORS IN THE APPEAL ARE RECORDED AS HAVING ATTAINED MAJORITY AND ARE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT THE APPEAL IN THEIR OWN NAMES ALONG WITH APPELLANT NO.1, MOTHER VIDE ORDER DT. 15.7.2008 IN I.A.2713/2008) BY ADV. SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN SRI.MATHEW UMMEN RESPONDENT(S)/ PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 2 AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 5,6 & 7: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.KUNHIKKALI, W/O.NAMBIATHU KANNAN, MANGATTU DESOM, PORKKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. (DIED, ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED) 2.CHANDRAN, BUSINESS, S/O.KITTAMBI PADU, KADIKKADU AMSOM & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3.DHARMADHEERAN, S/O.MELVEETTIL KUNHUMON @ KRISHNAN, KANIAMBAL DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4.JAISING, S/O.MELVEETTIL KUNHUMON @ KRISHNAN, -DO- 5.PREMADASAN, S/O.THAMARASSERY GOPALAN, ANAKKAL DESOM, KANIPPAYYUR VILLAGE. ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED : 6. SAROJINI, (D/O.KUNHIKALI) NAMBIATH HOUSE, MANGATTU DESOM, PORKKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK (ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED R1 VIDE ORDER IN I.A.532/01 DATED 16.12.2005.) ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU FOR ADDL.R6 SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI SMT.N.SUDHA FOR ADDL.R6 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, ALONG WITH AS NO. 187 OF 1998 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ AS. Nos. 700 of 1997 & 187 of 1998 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. A.S. No.700/1997 is preferred by defendants 1 to 4 and A.S.No.187/1998 is preferred by defendants 5 to 7. The suit was for partition, and for convenience we will be referring to the parties by their ranks before the trial court. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff, one Smt.Kunhikkali seeking partition and allotment of her 1/5 share in the plaint schedule properties which are 5 in number. The suit was filed on the premise that the properties belonged to her only son Sekharan, who died in testate. The 1st defendant Sobha is the widow of late Sekharan and defendants 2 to 4, all of them then minors, are the 3 daughters of late Sekharan. Defendants Nos.5 to 7 purchased properties described as item Nos.2 to 4 during the pendency of the suit from the 1st defendant and they AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 2 - were impleaded on the basis of such purchase. Additional plaintiff No.2 got himself impleaded on the basis of purchase of the 1/5 fractional interest claimed over the property by the original plaintiff Smt.Kunhikkali. 2. The 1st defendant on her personal behalf as well as on behalf of minor children D2 to 4 filed a written statement. In the very first paragraph of the written statement it is contended that late Sekharan had on 24.10.1991 executed a will in respect of his properties in the presence of witnesses. It is also contended that provision has been made in the above will as to how properties of Sekharan should be divided. It is alleged that the plaintiff who is aware of the existence of the will has filed the suit deliberately suppressing the same. As regards item Nos.3 and 5 of the plaint schedule, it is contended that those items are not partible since the 1st defendant alone is in possession of the property having advanced the entire consideration for purchase of those two items. The written AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 3 - statement raises other contentions also. The learned Subordinate Judge formulated the following issues for trial: “1). Are not the plaint schedule properties partible? 2). Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to get 1/5 share in the plaint schedule properties? 3). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 4). Reliefs and Costs? ” At trial the evidence on the side of the plaintiff consisted of Exts.A1 to A7 apart from the oral testimony given by PW1 the daughter of the plaintiff, who was also power of attorney holder for the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants the same consisted on Exts.B1 to B6(b) and the oral testimonies of DW1, the 1st defendant and DW2 to 5. DW5 was the 6th defendant himself. Reports filed by the Advocate Commissioners appointed by the court were marked as Exts.C1 to C3. At the stage of evidence the contention which was pursued by the main contesting 1st defendant AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 4 - was that succession to the estate of Sekharan was testamentary. Ext.B1 was the will dt. 25.10.1991. DW2 Preman who is the direct brother of DW1 Sobha was examined to prove that B1 will was written by him as instructed by deceased Sekharan. DW3 is the brother-in- law of DW2 and he was examined to prove that he attested the will and that the will was executed by late Sekharan. DW4 Karuppan who is the brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) of DW1 Sobha, was another attester to B1 and he was examined to prove the due execution and attestation of B1. DW5 was examined to prove his case that he is a bonafide purchaser for value. The learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion on evaluating the evidence that Ext.B1 will was shrouded in several suspicious circumstances. According to the learned Sub Judge DW1 the propounder of the will was totally unsuccessful in removing those circumstances and proving Ext.B1 to be a genuine will. In that view of the matter and relying on the documents AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 5 - relating to title, it was found by the court below that the properties are partible. Dealing with Exts.B2 and B5 the learned Sub Judge noticed that those documents are executed in respect of portions of the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit and only D1 who is entitled to only 1/5 share has executed the same. The court below found that the document in favour of D5, D6 and D7 will not bind the plaintiffs and the other co-owners. On the basis of such findings the learned Subordinate Judge held that a preliminary decree for partition was liable to be passed and accordingly passed a preliminary decree directing division of the plaint schedule property into 5 equal shares and allotment of one such share to the 1st plaintiff and recognising the assignment by the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 2nd plaintiff it was held that the above share should be allotted to the additional plaintiff. Share of income from the date of suit was also allowed to be recovered by the 2nd additional plaintiff. But the quantum of AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 6 - income was left upon to be decided at the final decree proceedings. 3. In the appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 4 in A.S.No.700/97 various grounds have been raised assailing the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the genuineness of Ext.B1 will whereas in A.S.No.187/98 though it is also urged that the will is a genuine one and that properties are not partible what is ultimately urged is that equitable relief should be granted to the appellants therein along item Nos.2 to 4 purchased by them towards the share of defendants Nos.1 to 4. Very extensive submissions were addressed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties particularly Sri.T.K.M Unnithan, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.700/97 and Smt.Sudha Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in that appeal. Sri.T.K.M.Unnithan submitted that the so called suspicious circumstances highlighted by the learned Subordinate Judge under the AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 7 - impugned judgment are not really suspicious circumstances. They are all circumstances which are clearly explicable. Mr. Unnithan further submitted that these circumstances are not brought out in the evidence. According to Mr. Unnithan the evidence adduced by DWs 1 to 4 was quite convincing as regards execution of the Will by Sri. Sekharan. The court below's conclusion that the Will is not genuine was based on surmises. Mr. Unnithan highlighted that the mother, the plaintiff did not enter the box. Instead, she authorised her daughter to give evidence on her behalf. The circumstance that the mother was not prepared to give evidence herself, is a circumstance which will justify drawal of adverse inference against the mother, the plaintiff. The mother was set up by the sister of the deceased and others and it is very clear from the evidence of PW-1 who came as a substitute for her mother. Sri.TKM Unnithan relied on a number of judicial precedents in support of his argument that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in proving that the Will in AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 8 - question was shrouded in suspicious circumstances. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Girdhari Lal, AIR 1978 SC 1202, and argued by referring to paragraphs 3, 9 and also paragraphs 2 to 12 generally that the evidence adduced in the case on the side of the defendants was more than sufficient to dispel the so- called suspicious circumstances. Mr. Unnithan referred to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and also to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Venkatamuni v. C.J.Ayodhya Ram Singh & ors. (AIR 2007 SC 311) that proof of the Will in terms of the above sections has been given in this case by the propounders. Mr. Unnithan also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, AIR 2002 SC 637 that the Law of Evidence does not permit conjuncture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 9 - and convincing evidence. It is only well founded suspicion which can be a ground for close scrutiny of evidence, but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict. Mr. Unnithan also argued that it is not the requirement of law that a doctor should be available at the time of execution of a Will for certifying the testamentary capacity of the testator. Mr. Unnithan also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apoline D'Souza v. John D'Souza, AIR 2007 SC 2219. 4. All the submissions of Mr. Unnithan were stiffly resisted by Smt.Sudha Babu, counsel for the contesting respondent. She would draw our attention to various aspects of the evidence adduced in the case and support the impugned judgment. According to her, the Will in question is shrouded in a number of suspicious circumstances and the propounders of the Will were unsuccessful in removing the suspicion. Smt. Sudha fortified her submissions by the authority of various decisions. She referred to the judgment AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 10 - of the Supreme Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 and to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh v. Ram Sahai, AIR 2008 SC 2485. She also referrd to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 SC 396 in support of the various propositions canvassed by her. 5. Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned counsel for the appellants in AS. 187 of 1998 would assail the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. According to him, on the basis of the evidence it should have been concluded that the Will is a genuine one. Even though Mr. Dandapani assailed the impugned judgment and the finding therein regarding genuineness of the Will, his ultimate submission was that equitable relief be granted to his clients who were additional defendants 5 to 7 and plaint item Nos. 2, 3, and 4 be set apart to the share of those who assigned those properties to AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 11 - his clients. Mr.Dandapani also submitted that the contesting respondent, the additional plaintiff himself is assignee pendente lite is not entitled to any privilege over any of the properties. According to him, the appellants are transferees from co-owners. Even if the Will is found to be not genuine and the transfer being from co-owners, they are co-owners along with the remaining co-owners and are entitled to claim exclusive right over the properties purchased by them and possessed by them in so far as the same is within the respective share of their assignors. 6. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence adduced in the case and the pleadings raised by the parties. According to us, the contesting defendants, the appellants in AS. 700/97 failed miserably in establishing that Ext.B1 Will propounded by them was a genuine Will, duly executed by Sekharan the testator. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 12 - the findings entered by the learned Subordinate Judge with reference to the evidence adduced in the case, we will refer to the specific pleading raised by the contesting defendants as regards Ext.B1 Will which significantly is not produced along with the written statement which was filed as early as on 2nd March, 1993. The Will is produced only on 5th July 1997 and the explanation offered by the contesting defendant in IA. No. 2656/97 for the late production of the Will is that the Will was shown to the Advocate at the time when the written statement was prepared and that Advocate returned the Will to the defendant saying that the same need be produced only at a later stage ad that when the Advocate's instructions came for production of the Will, the Will could not be traced. We will atonce observe that the explanation offered by the contesting defendants for the late production of the Will does not inspire any confidence in our mind. In fact the inordinate delay in producing the Will, the one document on the basis of which the plaintiff was sought AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 13 - to be non-suited is a circumstance which gives strong support to the contention of the plaintiff that the Will has been fabricated actually after the written statement was filed in the case. There is yet another strong circumstance which supports the conclusion that Ext.B1 Will though conceived by its beneficiaries earlier was actually brought into existence only after the written statement dated 02/03/93 was filed in court. It is in paragraph 1 of the above written statement that reference is made to Ext.B1 Will. Translated to English, what is stated therein is as follows:- “Deceased Shekaran has on 24/10/91 executed a Will in respect of his properties in the presence of witnesses. In that Will it is provided as to the manner in which Shekaran's properties should be divided.” A reading of Ext.B1 will show that the disposition under the same is a bequest of all the movable and immovable assets of the testator Shekaran including the terminal benefits which will be due to him from his employers and the Bank deposits in his name in favour of his wife Sobhana alone. In AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 14 - other words, Smt.Sobhana, the wife is the sole and universal legatee to the assets and estates of the testator. If as a matter of fact, the written statement was filed with reference to Ext.B1 and on the basis of Ext.B1 as contended there was no scope for a contention in the written statement to the effect that Shekaran's Will contains provision regarding the manner in which the assets left behind by Shekaran are to be divided (partitioned)after his demise. 7. Sri.Shekaran had three daughters. All of them were minors at the time when Ext.B1 was allegedly executed. They along with the original plaintiff Shekaran's mother were also Shekaran's legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act which would have governed the succession to Shekaran's estate. Surprisingly no provision is made in Ext.B1 even for the three minor daughters. One would expect the Will to contain some statement in the Will as to why the testator is disinheriting all his daughters and bequeathing the entirety of his estate in favour of his wife AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 15 - who at that time was aged only 38 years. This again is a circumstance which probabilises the version of the contesting respondents that the Will is not a genuine one but is a concoction brought into existence long after the deceased breathed his last. 8. Ext.B1 Will is allegedly executed on 24/10/91 while Sri.Shekaran, the testator was admitted in the emergency post operative care ward of the Medical College Hospital at Trichur. The health condition of Sri.Shekaran who was suffering from colon/Pancreas cancer at a terminal stage having already undergone two unsuccessful major surgeries in succession was evidently precarious. Significantly, Sri.Shekaran died on the very next day and it is not difficult to assume having regard to the nature of the disease which Sri.Shekaran was suffering from, that at the time of alleged execution of the Will. Sri.Shekaran must have been suffering from excruciating pain. We will immediately observe that the story that Sri.Shekaran executed Ext.B1 AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 16 - out of his own volition with perfect testamentary capacity while being admitted in the post operative care emergency ward of the Medical College Hospital is implicitly incredible. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has referred to various circumstances which cast natural clouds of suspicion on Ext.B1 Will. The question is whether the propounders of the Will were able to remove those clouds by the evidence that they adduced for proving the due execution and attestations of the Will. We are in complete agreement with the finding entered by the learned Subordinate Judge in the context of the issue regarding the genuineness of the Will and its alleged execution and attestation. The oral evidence adduced by the witnesses DWs.1 to 4 cannot inspire any confidence in the mind of any conscientious court searching for truth. 9. DW1 is the sole legatee under Ext.B1. Her version in cross examination is that she was keeping custody of the Will. He first version in cross examination is that till the Will AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 17 - was produced in the Court she was keeping custody of the same. Later she would say that at the commencement of the litigation she entrusted the Will with the Advocate and that she has never taken it back from the Advocate. When she is confronted with her own averment in the affidavit in support of the I.A for production of the Will, as regards the return of the Will by the lawyer to her and also as regards the un-traceability of the Will when the lawyer gave instructions for production, her response is mere silence. 10. DW2 Preman the alleged scribe of the Will is none other than the brother of DW1 Sobhana. He is on his own admission a novice in the art of Will writing or for that matter writing of any document whatsoever. Importantly, neither the name nor the signature of Sri.Preman DW1 appears on Ext.B1. B1 is completely silent as to the identity of the scribe under whose handwriting the same is written. Ext.B1 runs to two pages. On the first page name of Shekaran is written and against that a signature which is AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 18 - alleged to be that of Shekaran is also seen put. But on the last page significantly, Shekaran's signature is seen put not against his name but after the signature of the two attesting witnesses. DW2 Preman was employed in a Gulf country and was on a short visit to Trichur at the time when Ext.B1 was allegedly written by him to the dictation of his deceased brother-in-law Shekaran. When DW2 is asked about the signature of Shekaran what he says is Shekaran writes his name and draws a circle above the same. It will be noticed that Shekaran's apparent signature on Ext.B1 does not conform to DW2's version regarding Shekaran's signature. 11. DW3 is Jayachandran who was a House Surgeon at the time of alleged execution of Ext.B1. At that time his sister was betrothed to DW2 Preman and he refers to DW2 Preman as his brother-in-law, even at the time of alleged execution of the Will in view of the obvious position that the marriage between DW3's sister and Preman stood fixed already. DW3 is apparently an attester of Ext.B1 and he is AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 19 - examined for proving due execution and attestation of Ext.B1. His version is to the effect that going by the terms of the Will which was read over in his presence, the bequest under the Will was in favour of the wife and children of the testator Shekaran. He has not witnessed the writing down of the Will by his brother-in-law Preman to the dictation of the testator Shekaran. He does not know on which day and at what time the Will was written. At the time when he signed the Will, nobody else had subscribed his signature to the same. The testimony of this highly interesting witness did not inspire the trial court, nor does it inspire us. An aspect which emerges from the testimony of this witness is that one Dr.Sasidharan was the chief of the unit which treated deceased Shekaran and that a Surgeon then attached to the Medical College Hospital conducted surgery on Sri.Shekaran. We are of the view that the most competent persons to swear as to the testamentary capacity of deceased Shekaran on 24/10/91 were either of these AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 20 - Doctors and not DW3. 12. DW4 Karappan is the other attesting witness to Ext.B1. He again is the direct brother-in-law of DW1 Sobhana the sole legatee under Ext.B1. A scrutiny of his cross examination will show that he is perhaps more interested in DW1 than DW2 her own brother. His version also did not rightly inspire confidence in the mind of the learned Subordinate Judge. 13. There are other excellent reasons to support our conclusions that the version of the plaintiff that Ext.B1 is not a genuine Will duly executed by deceased Shekaran is much more probable than the version of the propounders of the Will. The apparent signatures of Shekaran the testator is stiffly disputed by the plaintiff. In the wake of this dispute DW1 produces get herself examined again and proves Ext.B6 series. Ext.B6 series are interestingly three postal covers in which deceased Shekaran while abroad had sent her letters. On these three covers the name of Shekaran is AS.700/97 & 187/98 - 21 - written. It is perhaps to prove the similarity in the name of Shekaran written in Ext.B1 with the names written on these covers that the covers were produced. But in cross examination it has come out that a few letters written by her husband are actually available in her house. We are at a loss to understand why DW1 did not become prepared to produce the letters written by her husband. We feel that there is justification for drawal of adverse inference against DW1 due to non-production of the letters of her husband which are admittedly kept by her in her house. Even otherwise Sri.Shekaran was employed overseas for quite a long period of time. If as a matter of fact DW1 wanted to prove the apparent signatures of Shekaran on Ext.B1 to be his genuine signatures she could have done so without much difficulty. 14. As already indicated, we have