K.Srinivasan v. K.Jayaraman

O.P.No.741 of 2019 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

This Original Petition has been filed taking advantage of Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking grant of Letters of Administration with will annexed, relating to the Will dated 12.05.1995 executed by V.Krishnamoorthy, father of the petitioner, who died on 13.11.2002. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the other two sons / brothers of the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents are the daughters / sisters of the petitioner and the 5th respondent is the widow of V.Krishnamoorthy / mother of the petitioner.

2.It is stated that the 1st respondent, the eldest son had informed the petitioner and the other respondents about the execution of the Will. However, the original had not been produced. He had only given copies of the Will. The petitioner herein had filed A.No.6958 of 2017 seeking a direction against the 1st respondent to produce the original Will dated 12.05.1995. The 1st respondent had not so done and therefore, the Original Will is not before this Court.

3.The 4th respondent / one of the sisters had filed O.S.No.2047 of 2013 before the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and in the said suit she had sought relief of partition of the properties of the father / V.Krishnamoorthy in accordance with the Will, the Letters of Administration of which is sought in this Original Petition. 4.The respondents had been served, but they had taken a conscious decision not to appear before this Court and consequently, on 26.02.2021 holding that inspite of repeated adjournments they had not appeared, a learned Single Judge of this Court had set them ex-parte. 5.The petitioner was thereafter, directed to adduce evidence. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. The copy of the Will dated 12.05.

1995 which copy was taken from the copy filed in the suit before the XIII City Civil Court Chennai, by the 4th respondent was marked as Ex.P1. The learned Master had marked the said document subject to its admissibility. But since the Will is admitted and has been marked as a document in the suit filed by the 4th respondent, I would take it on record Ex.P1. Ex.P2 was the legal heirship certificate of V.Krishnamoorthy and Ex.P3 was the death certificate. Ex.P2 was a xerox copy, but since there is no dispute regarding legal heirs, the copy can be taken on record.

6.Thereafter, since both the attesting witness had died, it was required that the petitioner should file the death certificates and therefore, the death certificates of R.Vijaya Raghavan and S.Ganesan were filed as Exs.P8 and P9. The copy of the plaint filed by the 4th respondent in O.S.No.2047 of 2013 before the XIII Assistant City Civil Court Chennai was marked as Ex.P10 and the proof affidavit therein was marked as Ex.P11. The written statements of the 1st 2nd and 5th respondents who were the 2nd, 1st and 5th defendants in the suit had been marked as Exs.P13, P14 and P15. 7.Very importantly, the 5th respondent herein who is the 5th defendants / widow of V.

Krishnamoorthy had in her written statement very specifically stated that her husband died leaving behind the Will, but that the parties had given a go by to the Will and divided the property in accordance with their shares. But the fact that there was a Will had been expressed by her. 8.The 1st and 2nd respondents have alternately stated about the existence of Will and non-existence of the Will. If they wanted to contest this proceeding for grant of Letters of Administration, a duty was cast on them to answer to the notice issued by the Court.

same had been produced from lawful custody namely, from the custody of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, where the copy of the Will was filed in a suit.

9.Since the attesting witnesses had died, the petitioner had also examined as PW-2, G.Karunanidhi who claimed that he knew the testator V.Krishnamoorthy and also identified the signature of the 2nd attesting witness S.Ganesan. He stated that he worked as a Postman in that area. He also filed his affidavit and marked Ex.P7. This is an compliance of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

10.In view of the evidence adduced and particularly because the respondents have not answered to the notice issued by the Court and had been set ex-parte,, this Original Petition stands allowed. Letters of Administration is granted with will annexed.

11.The petitioner is directed to duly administer the properties and credits of the deceased more fully described in the schedule. The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S.II) High Court,

Madras. The petitioner is further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year.

28.10.2022 smv

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

Smv O.P.No.741 of 2019 28.10.2022