S.J.Jansi Rani v. Crecy Fernandes & Ors.

and transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as C.S.No.90of 2004, is the appellant and aggrieved by the decreeing of the suitin T.S.No.5 of 2001 and dismissal of her suit in C.S.No.90 of 2004,has filed these appeals. 2. The facts in brief for the disposal of these appeals areas follows:- The Plaintiff in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 viz., Ms.Crecey Fernandeshas filed O.P.No.309 of 2000 on the file of this Court, under Section222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against Sister PiaFernandes and 7 others, praying for Probate of the Will dated14.06.1986, executed by her Late brother S.R.Fernandes.3. The 8th Respondent viz., S.J.Jansi Rani, who is theappellant in these appeals, entered a caveat and opposed the grant ofProbate. Therefore, the O.P. was converted into T.O.S.No.5 of 2001. 4. In the Original Petition, it is averred among other thingsthat wife of S.R.Fernandes pre-deceased him and they had no issues.S.R.Fernandes was living alone in the upstairs portion of hisresidence and died of cardiac arrest in the After Noon on 16.8.1998and at the time of his death, none was with him. The tenant who isresiding in the Ground-floor, on becoming aware of the death ofS.R.Fernandes, called a doctor, who certified that he died of cardiacarrest. The tenant had also informed the police who registered acase and a telegram was also sent to a friend of the deceased inBangalore. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to the friendof late S.R.Fernandes and it was buried according to Christian rites.5. It is further averred in the petition that the plaintiffin T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 became aware of the demise of her brotherS.R.Fernandes nearly after two months and immediately she rushed toChennai. On visiting the house of her late brother, the plaintifffound that the tenant who was residing in the Ground-floor, hadcriminally trespassed in the upstairs portion occupied by her latebrother and also taken away all important records and also plunderedthe household and other articles. The original Holograph Will dated14.06.1986 (Ex.P1) was given to the Plaintiff by way of abundantcaution under which, her deceased brother S.R.Fernandes has appointedher as a Sole Executrix of the Will and it is an unregistered Will.The deceased was possessed an immovable property in the City ofChennai, which is his self acquired property. The next kith and kinof the deceased were impleaded as parties to the above saidO.P./T.O.S. and none of them had opposed. Therefore, the plaintiffin T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 prayed for the Probate of the Will. 6. The affidavit of attestors of the Will were also enclosedalong with the said O.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. As already stated, the said O.P. was converted intoT.O.S.No.5 of 2001, on the opposition from 8th Defendant viz.,S.J.Jansi Rani. She filed a written statement contending among otherthings that the Will dated 14.06.1986, is a manufactured one and thesignature of S.R.Fernandes was forged thereon. It is furthercontended that the deceased S.R.Fernandes had executed an AdoptionDeed dated 27.1.1994, in favour of the 8th Defendant as his Adopted-daughter and he had bequeathed all his properties by virtue of thesaid Adoption Deed. It is also contended by the 8th Defendant thatthe Will dated 14.06.1986, was not duly executed or attested and itis inadmissible in law. 8. The 8th Defendant in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 filed O.S.No.455of 2003, on the file of the City Civil Court at Chennai againstMs.Crecey Fernandes, for declaration that the Adoption Deed dated27.1.1994, executed by late S.R.Fernandes, is a true and valid onebinding on the defendant, for permanent injunction restraining thedefendant from interfering with her possession of the suit propertyand also from executing the order of eviction dated 20.9.2002, inR.C.O.P.No.815 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Small Causes atChennai. 9. The Plaintiff in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001, who was arrayed asthe sole defendant in the above said suit, filed her writtenstatement. It is averred in the written statement that the appellantherein has fraudulently fabricated a document purported to be anAdoption Deed by forging the signature of S.R.Fernandes and managedto get a Succession Certificate and based on it, withdrew severallakhs of cash deposits deposited by late S.R.Fernandes. It isfurther stated in the written statement that R.C.O.P.No.815 of 2002,was filed by her for evicting the appellant herein and it was allowedand eviction was ordered. Therefore, for the said reasons, thedefendant in O.S.No.455 of 2003, who is arrayed as the Respondent inthese appeals, prayed for the dismissal of the said suit. 10. The suit in O.S.No.455 of 2003 pending on the file of theCity Civil Court at Chennai, was transferred to the file of thisCourt and renumbered as TR.C.S.No.90 of 2004. This Court on aconsideration of the pleadings in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 and TR.C.S.No.90of 2004, has framed the following issues:T.O.S.NO.5 OF 2001:-1) Whether the Will dated 14.06.1986 was executed by theDeceased Sylvester R.Fernandes?2) Whether the Will is a forged one?3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for grant of probate as prayed for? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TR.C.S.No.90 of 2004 (O.S.No.455 of 2003):1)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a relief of Declarationas prayed for?2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunctionas prayed for?3) To what relief?11. On the side of the Plaintiff viz., Ms.Crecey Fernandes,examined herself, as P.W.1 and one of the attestors of the Will dated14.06.1986 viz., Sham Chandra Banerjee, was examined as P.W.2. Onthe side of the Plaintiff, Exs. P1 to P25 were marked. On the side ofthe Defendant viz., S.J.Jansi Rani, she examined herself as D.W.1and one of the attestors of the Deed of Adoption dated 27.1.1994viz., Dhanalakshmi, was examined as D.W.2. On the side of theDefendant, Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. 12. Since the issues involved in both the suits were common,the learned Judge had taken up the trial of both suits together. 13. The learned Judge, on a consideration of pleadings, oraland documentary evidences, has held that Ex.P1 is a Holograph Willand through the testimony of P.W.2, execution of the said Will hasbeen proved. As regards the contention that other brothers andsisters of late S.R.Fernandes, had been excluded, it has been heldthat other three brothers of late S.R.Fernandes, died and the wife ofthe second brother viz., Anthoni, had also given her consent forgrant of Probate in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant inT.O.S.No.5 of 2001 who is the sister of the plaintiff, had become anun, since the plaintiff unmarried and the youngest sister being anun, the Court found that quite naturally, S.R.Fernandes hadbequeathed his property in her favour and also appointed her as theSole beneficiary of the Will. 14. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration thecaveatable interest of the 8th Defendant S.J.Jansi Rani and foundthat she had claimed her right based on the Deed of Adoption and alsoobtained the Succession Certificate in O.P.No.722 of 1999. ThePlaintiff namely Ms.Crecey Fernandes, on coming to know of the same,has filed an application in Application No.3586 of 2000, forrevocation of the Succession Certificate by questioning thegenuineness of the said Adoption Deed marked as Ex.D1. The saiddocument was sent for the opinion of the handwriting expert and itwas found that the disputed signature did not tally with the admittedsignature of S.R.Fernandes. The learned Judge based on the saidreport and other materials, had revoked the Succession Certificategranted in favour of the 8th Defendant/Appellant in these appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The learned Judge has gone into detail, the validity ofAdoption Deed which was marked as Ex.P20/Ex.D1. To prove the AdoptionDeed, 8th Defendant examined her neighbour as P.W.2. This Court,relied upon the order of revocation of Succession Certificate grantedby the learned Judge dated 24.9.2001 and the subsequent conduct ofthe 8th Defendant in not producing the Succession Certificate inspite of notice. The learned Judge has also taken note of the factthat the 8th Defendant/Appellant was also found guilty of contempt ofCourt and a fine of Rs.100/- was levied on her. Ultimately, thelearned Judge found that there is absolutely no evidence to show thatS.R.Fernandes has treated the appellant herein as his Adopted-daughter during his life time. 16. The learned Judge has also compared the disputed signaturein Ex.P20, with the admitted signature of the S.R.Fernandes, inExs.D5 and D6 and found that the disputed signature found in Ex.P20,is in variation from the admitted signatures and hence, given a clearand categorical finding that the appellant herein had fabricatedEx.P20-Adoption Deed. The learned Judge taking into account, theconduct of the appellant/8th Defendant, has imposed costs ofRs.5,000/-, while decreeing the suit in T.S.No.5 of 2001. The suitfiled by the 8th Defendant in TR.C.S.No.90 of 2004 was dismissed withcosts. 17. The present appeals are filed by the 8th Defendant,challenging the legality of the judgment and decree passed in theabove suits. 18. Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Sivakumar for the appellant andMr.S.A.Syed Haroon, learned counsel appearing for the firstRespondent who is the contesting Respondent. Even though noticeserved on the Respondents 2 and 3, they neither chosen to appear inperson nor through the counsel. Batta with fresh address dueregarding R4 to R8 and it is represented that they did not oppose theclaim of the Respondent Ms.Crecy Fernandes in the OriginalProceedings. This Court has also perused the pleadings, oral anddocumentary evidences. 19. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellantwould submit that the testamentary Court is a Court of Conscience anddehors the findings in respect of Ex.P1-Will and Ex.P20-AdoptionDeed, the duty cast upon the Court to find out whether Ex.P1-Will isa genuine one and not came into being in a fraudulent or suspiciousmanner. 20. The learned senior counsel has drawn the attention ofthis Court to oral testimony of P.W.2-one of the attesting witnessesto Ex.P1-Will. In the Chief Examination, P.W.2 has deposed that hehas signed Ex.P1 will and he is able to identify the signature of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.R.Fernandes in the Will and he subscribed his signature before himand at that time, the other attesting witness viz., Mr.Tapan KumarPaul was also present and both of them had signed in the Will in thepresence of Fernandes and he in turn, signed in their presence.P.W.2 has also filed an affidavit marked as Ex.P18. 21. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 would depose that on thedate of the execution of the Will (Ex.P1), he went personally to thehouse of S.R.Fernandes. When he went to the house of Fernandes, hefound that the Will was written before hand and he did not read thecontents of the Will. He saw the signature of the S.R.Fernandes inthe Will and he signed under his signature. P.W.2 further deposedthat Fernandes told him that he personally wrote the Will and aftersigning the Will, he gave the Will back to Fernandes who in turn,gave it to Mr.Tapan Kumar Paul for signing it. When, P.W.2 signed inthe Will, Fernandes and Mr.Tapan Kumar Paul also saw him signing. Itwas suggested to P.W.2 that the terms of the Will were dictated bythe plaintiff viz., Ms.Crecey Fernandes, and it was written byS.R.Fernandes and at the time of writing the Will, Fernandes wasdrunken and was under the influence of alcohol. It was furthersuggested to him that Ex.P1-Will, is not in the handwriting of theFernandes and he did not sign the Will in his presence, P.W.2 deniedall the suggestions. 22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellanthad heavily relied upon the testimony of P.W.2 and vehementlycontended that the mode and manner of execution of an unprivilegedWill, as contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and themode and manner of proof thereof, as contained in Section 68 of theEvidence Act, has not been complied with, as P.W.2 in his cross-examination, did not depose that he saw S.R.Fernandes signing theWill before he signed the said document, as attesting witness. It isthe further submission of the learned senior Counsel appearing forthe appellant, that dehors the finding of the learned Judgeregarding Ex.P20-Adoption Deed, this Court is the testamentary Courtand it is a Court of conscience and therefore, duty cast upon it tofind out whether the Will is genuine one. Since the testimony ofP.W.2, has not satisfied the requirement Section 63 of the IndianSuccession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learnedJudge has committed a grave error in decreeing the suit in T.O.S.No.5of 2001.23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellantwould further submit that by virtue of the Deed of Adoption, theappellant is having caveatable interest and the learned Judge oughtnot to have relied upon the findings given in the collateralproceedings regarding revocation of the Succession Certificate.Since the appellant has provided food and taken care ofS.R.Fernandes, he on free volition, has executed a Deed of Adoption,adopting the appellant herein as a daughter and gave her, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties and there is nothing suspicious about it. Hence, thelearned senior counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for settingaside the judgment and decree passed in Tr.C.S.No.90 of 2004 andfurther prayed for decreeing of the said suit. On the other hand,learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent has supported thefindings of the learned Judge and taken us through the pleadings andevidence. 24. The points for consideration are as follows:i) Whether the execution of Will (Ex.P1) has been proved inaccordance with law?ii) Whether Ex.P20 Adoption Deed is a valid and genuine one?25. Point No.1:- Affidavit of P.W.2 has been filed alongwith O.P.No.390 of 2000 (T.S.No.5 of 2001) and it would indicatethat he and Tapan Kumar Paul-another attesting witness, had seenS.R.Fernandes, subscribing his signature in the Will and they in turnsubscribed their signatures as witnesses, which was also witnessed byS.R.Fernandes. Chief-examination of P.W.2, was in consonance withthe contents of his affidavit. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 hasdeposed that he personally went to the house of Fernandes on the dateof the examination of the Will and when he went there, he found thatthe Will was written before hand. P.W.2 has further deposed that hesaw the signing of Fernandes in the Will and he signed it under hissignature and after him Mr.Tapan Kumar Paul had subscribed hissignature in the Will. P.W.2 also deposed that Fernandes told himthat he personally wrote the Will. The suggestions put to P.W.2 asstated above were denied by P.W.2. 26. There is a strong presumption in favour of holographicWill. Vide 1996(9) SCC 324 - Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs) (nee Vas)v. Vera Marie Vas (Ms). The appellant has not disputed thehandwriting or the signature of the testator. In fact the suggestionin the cross-examination is that the testator wrote it under thedictation of the Respondent-his sister Crecy. This suggestion hasbeen denied. All along the testator's intention had been to make herthe sole beneficiary. Even in Ex.P17 the earlier Will which he wrotewhile he was living in Mangalore dated 8.4.1985, he had bequeathedhis entire estate to her she was at Calcutta. Even in cross-examination, she had stated Ex.P17 is the previous Will. So there isnothing suspicious about the present Will Ex.P1, where the sameintention is expressed. Ex.P1 is dated 14.6.1986. The testator diedonly on 16.8.1998 more than 2 years later. He had enough time torevoke it if he so desired. The anumus attestandi is clear. Incross-examination P.W.2 had said "Before I signed in the Will asattesting witness Mr.Tapan Kumar did not tell anything". Tapan Kumaris the other attesting witness. Again in cross-examination he hadsaid "when I signed in the Will, Fernandes and Mr.Tapan Kumar saw the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ signing" and "After I signed the Will, I gave the Will back toMr.Fernandes, who gave the Will to Mr.Tapan Kumar for signing". Theone statement in cross-examination is ..... on by the learned seniorcounsel is "Mr.Fernandez told me that he personally wrote the Will".It was submitted that there is then no evidence for testator signingthe Will. But this submission is unsustainable since the Will is aholographic Will. So one should understand that statement in thatcontext and we have no doubt that what P.W.2 meant was that Fernandeztold him he personally wrote the Will which included signature. Thissatisfies the statutory requirement of Section 63 of the IndianSuccession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. We mustalso remember that P.W.2 was 77 years old when he gave evidence. Hewas speaking of an event that happened 20 years before. If there aresmall differences in his evidence, we cannot disbelieve the executionand attestation on that score. The Chief examination is clear inthis regard. We have already seen the cross-examination. In thiswhen we look at Ex.P1, the last sentences are as follows:-"This is the last Will and testament of meSylverster Rapheal Fernandes, S/o LazarusFernandes. I hereby revoke all forms of Wills andCodicils and offer testamentary disposition by meat any time heretofore made and declare this tobe my Will. It will take effect after my death.It is my wish and desire that after my deathMiss.Crecy Fernandes may youngest sister shall beentitled to all my estate and effect thereofabsolutely and legatee of my this Will. I hereby have given desire and bequeathabsolutely and for ever to his heirs, executors,administrators for their use and benefit,absolutely and for ever, all my property, assetsand credits both movable and immovable ofwhatsoever character or whatsoever situateincluding all securities expectancy and futureassets if any acquired by me and I hereby appointMiss.Crecy Fernandes the said sole executor ofthis my Will who will be entitled to obtainprobate without being required to furnish mysecurity. Dated this fourteenth day of June 1986.In witness, I have hereunto set andsubscribed my hand and signature this 14th day ofJune 1986. Sd/-..............as his last Will and testament in our presence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ all being present at the same time. Thereafterat their request and in his presence wesubscribed our respective names and signatures asattesting addresses all being also present at thesame time. Shyam Chandra Banerji, 107, C.I.T. Road, Cal-14. Tapan Kumar Paul, Saradapally, Rabhla, Hooghly(W.B.). "27. In an identical situation the supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC529- Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee it has been heldas follows:“Further the fact that the Will is a holographWill and admittedly in the hand of the testatorand in the last paragraph of the Will the testatorhad stated that he had signed the Will in thepresence of the witnesses and the witnesses hadsigned it in his presence and in the presence ofeach other raise strong presumption of itsregularity and of its being duly executed andattested. On these facts there is hardly anysuspicious circumstance attached to this Will andit will in our opinion require very littleevidence to prove due execution and attestation ofthe Will. There is no doubt about the genuinenessof the signature of the testator, for it isadmitted that the signature at the foot of theWill is his. The condition of the testator’s mindis also not in doubt and he apparently had fulltestamentary capacity right up to March 1947, eventhough he was an old man of about 97 when he diedon 1-4-1947. ... There is nothing to show that thedispositions were not the result of the free willand mind of the testator. Further, the propounders(namely, the appellants) had nothing to do withthe execution of the Will and thus there arereally no suspicious circumstances at all in thiscase. All that was required was to formally proveit, though the signature of the testator wasadmitted and it was also admitted that the wholeWill was in his handwriting. It is in thebackground of these circumstances that we have toconsider the evidence of the two attestingwitnesses. ...”and in 1996(9) SCC 324 - Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs) (nee Vas) v.Vera Marie Vas (Ms)., it has been held as follows:- " 12. In applying the above general principlesto particular cases, the nature of the Will, thepleadings of the parties in the case, facts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted or proved and the presumptions availablein law, will have to be carefully given effect to.The case of a “holograph Will” which is admittedlyin the handwriting of the testator, is a specialcase which will require a different approach inconsidering the evidence in the case, to findwhether the Will has been duly executed andattested. The approach to be made in such caseshas been stated by the Constitution Bench inShashi Kumar Banerjee case, at p.532 paragraph(5). In that case, the Court referred to certainundisputed preliminary facts as follows: Thetestator, a well-known wealthy lawyer, who died atthe age of 97, had executed a Will when he was 93years’ old. He had made provision for his heirs byexecuting a number of documents, and the Willreferred to the remaining property. The Will waswitnessed by two persons. The entire Will was inthe handwriting of the testator, corrected invarious places and the corrections were initialledby him. It was admitted that the signature at thebottom of the Will was of the testator. Thedispositions were very clear and detailed and itcould not be said to be an unnatural document.There was no evidence to show that the propounderstook any part in the execution of the Will. Afterstating these preliminary facts, the Court statedthe approach to be made in the case of a“holograph Will”, thus:The High Court in the appeal filed by Defendants 3and 4, reappreciating the evidence, thecircumstances and the probabilities, formed “itsown impression” about the evidence in the case,and “taking an overall picture of the entire caseas revealed in the evidence” held that it was“constrained to observe that this case of thealleged Will is shrouded in suspicion”.13. We heard the counsel. As stated in The Law ofWills in India and Pakistan by Mantha Ramamurthi,at pp. 81-82, the general principles governing thepresumption of due execution and attestation, inthe case of Wills are:“If a Will appears on the face of it to have beenduly executed and attested in accordance with therequirements of the Act, the maxim ‘omniapresumuntur rite esse acta’, applies, unless it isclearly proved by the attesting witnesses that theWill is not in fact duly executed. The Court ofProbate has long been accustomed to give great https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ weight to the presumption of due execution arisingfrom the regularity ex facie of the testamentarypaper produced where no suspicion of fraud hasoccurred.The maxim ‘Omnia Presumuntur rite esse acta’ is anexpression in a short form, of a reasonableprobability, and of the propriety in point of lawon acting on such probability. The maxim expressesan inference which may reasonably be drawn when anintention to do some formal act is established. InBlake v. Knight1 Sir Herbert Jenner Fust observed‘Is it absolutely necessary to have positiveaffirmative testimony by the subscribed witnessesthat the Will was actually signed in theirpresence, or actually acknowledged in theirpresence? Is it absolutely necessary, under allcircumstances that the witnesses should concur instating that these acts took place? Or is itabsolutely necessary, where the witnesses will notswear positively, that the court should pronounceagainst the validity of the Will. I think theseare not absolute requisites to the validity of theWill.’Consequently, ‘where the evidence of attestingwitnesses is vague or doubtful or even conflictingthe court may take into consideration thecircumstances of the case and judge from themcollectively whether the requirements of theStatute were complied with; in other words thecourt may, on consideration of other evidence orof the whole circumstances of the case, come tothe conclusion that their recollection is atfault, that their evidence is of a suspiciouscharacter, or that they were wilfully misleadingthe court, and accordingly disregard theirtestimony and pronounce in favour of the Will’.” (emphasis supplied)14. The author has also categorised the variousinstances where the maxim has been applied indifferent cases — (1) absence of evidence; (2)some attestors speaking for and some against theWill; (3) attestors honest but mistaken and (4)attestors giving false evidence.15. While the presumption in the case of ordinaryWills is as stated above, in the case of“holograph Wills”, the presumption is all the more— a greater presumption. Ex. P-1 is a “holographWill”. It is one which is wholly in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ handwriting of the testator. The Calcutta HighCourt in Ajit Chandra Majumdar v. Akhil ChandraMajumdar (AIR Cal at p.552) stated about such aWill, thus:“The whole of this Will was written in the hand bythe testator himself in English. The handwritingis clear and firm. The law makes a greatpresumption in favour of the genuineness of aholograph Will for the very good reason that themind of the testator in physically writing out hisown Will is more apparent in a holograph Will thanwhere his signature alone appears to either atyped script or to a script written by somebodyelse. The writing of the Will and signature of thetestator are admitted. There is also due andproper attestation in accordance with the relevantstatutory provisions. No suspicious circumstanceappears on the face of the document, Ex. P-1. TheWill appears to be moderate and rational. Viewedfrom the above angle, there is a great presumption— even bordering on actual proof of the dueexecution and attestation of the Will."The law does not emphasis that the witness must use the language ofSection 63 to prove the requisite matters thereof. P.W.2 has given aclear and cogent evidence regarding execution and unless there arestrong grounds, to repel the effect of testimony of P.W.2, it cannotbe said that Ex.P1 came into being under suspicious circumstances. 28. The testimony of P.W.2 in the considered opinion of thisCourt, is not seriously impaired in the cross-examination. In orderto dislodge the testimony of P.W.2, something more than suspicion, isrequired to discredit his testimony and this Court finds that thetestimony of P.W.2 is natural, cogent and nothing suspicious todiscredit his testimony. 29. The learned Judge has elaborately gone into the saidissue in detail and has given sound reasons for accepting thetestimony of P.W.2 and held that Ex.P1 has been proved in accordancewith law. 30. This Court finds no sound or tenable reasons to differfrom the said reasons given by the learned Judge. Therefore, thisCourt holds that Ex.P1 has been proved in accordance with law and weanswer the said point in favour of the Respondent. 31. Point No.2:- Ex.P20-Adoption Deed was produced in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.P.No.722 of 1999, by the appellant, for Succession Certificate andit was ordered. Thereafter, the Respondent herein filed anapplication for revocation of Succession Certificate, in ApplicationNo.3586 of 2000. The Respondent herein also filed an application tosent the Deed of Adoption and other documents containing admittedsignature of late S.R.Fernandes, for expert opinion and it wasordered. The documents were sent to Tamil Nadu Forensic ScienceDepartment for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert. Thedisputed signature in the Adoption Deed was compared with previousWill of Fernandes dated 8.4.1985, letter dated 8.8.1986, Special FormNo.143 of TNEB, Form B of TNEB, Health Card and Voter Identity Card.The Handwriting expert in his report, has stated that the disputedsignatures are not the signatures of Fernandes. 32. The learned Judge, after taking note of the said report,has revoked the Succession Certificate granted in favour of theappellant and allowed the Application No.3586 of 2000 filed by theRespondent. 33. On 16.8.1998, S.R.Fernandes died of cardiac arrest andthe appellant at that time was the tenant under him. She lodged acomplaint in Crime No.1466/1998, with regard to the death ofS.R.Fernandes and a case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.In her statement dated 16.8.1998, given to the police, the appellantdid not state that she is an adopted daughter of S.R.Fernandes. Itis to be remembered at this juncture, the alleged adoption deed cameinto existence on 27.1.1994, and nothing precluded the appellantherein from stating that she is the adopted daughter of lateS.R.Fernandes.34. The learned Judge has also taken note of the testimoniesof D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.1 had deposed in O.P.722 of 1999 that shewas not aware of the adoption deed at the time when it was written.D.W.2 pleaded ignorance and stated that the parents of the Defendantnever told her that they are giving their daughter in adoption toFernandes. The husband of the appellant herein viz., Parasuraman hasalso not informed D.W.2, that his wife was given in adoption toFernandes. It is also to be remembered at this juncture thatadmittedly the appellant herein is professing Hindu faith and it isnot made clear under what circumstances she became the adopteddaughter of S.R.Fernandes. 35. The Respondent herein filed a petition for eviction inR.C.O.P.No.817 of 2002, against the appellant herein, for evictionand it was ordered on 20.9.2002. The appellant aggrieved by theorder of eviction, preferred an appeal in RCA No.802 of 2003. Theappeal was also dismissed. 36. Thereafter, the Respondent herein levied execution, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pursuant to the decree for eviction in E.P.No.395 of 2009 and sincethere was an obstruction, she filed an application in E.A.No.79 of2009 for removal of the obstruction. The obstructor has raised anobjection that the suit property was sold in her favour on 23.3.2007by means of a registered document dated 2954/2007. In view of thependency of this appeals, the Execution petition is not taken up fordisposal and it is pending.37. The learned judge has considered the validity of Ex.P20Adoption Deed and also the opinion of the handwriting expert underEx.P9 in great detail and held that Ex.P20 Adoption Deed is not agenuine document. The learned Judge has also compared the disputedsignature of Fernandes in Ex.P20 with the admitted signaturesparticularly in Ex.D5 and D6 and found that disputed signature inEx.P20 is variation with the admitted signatures. The learned Judgeultimately found that the appellant herein has fabricated theAdoption Deed by using the stamp papers purchased in the name of lateS.R.Fernandes and after his demise, has trespassed in the upstairsportion and taken away all important records, material evidences,household articles and valuables and also put in possession of herson. The learned Judge further found that in view of the order ofeviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.815 of 2002 her possession cannot deemto be a lawful one and therefore in terms of Section 41(a) of theSpecific Relief Act, injunction to restrain the execution of thedecree cannot be granted. The appeal preferred against the evictionorder was also dismissed and Execution application is pending in viewof the pendency of these appeals.38. We concur with the view taken by the learned Judge thatthe appellant herein has failed to approach this Court with cleanhands and her case is based on falsehood. The appellant herein hasabused the process of this Court and made her claim based on afabricated document alleged to be a Deed of Adoption marked asEx.P20. 39. This Court on a careful consideration and appreciation ofpleadings, oral and documentary evidences and on an independentapplication of mind, finds that the appellant herein has miserablyfailed to prove and establish that Ex.P1 Will is not genuine one andthat Deed of Adoption in her favour is a true and valid one.Therefore, point No.2 is answered against the appellant. 40. This Court finds that the learned Judge has consideredthe materials in detail and given clear and cogent reasons innegativing the claim of the appellant. There is no error apparent onthe face of the record or illegality or irregularity in the findingsrecorded by the learned Judge. This Court finds that the groundsraised by the appellant herein lack merit and substance and hence nointerference is warranted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. In the result both appeals are dismissed with costs.Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 is closed. gr. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarToThe Sub Assistant RegistrarOriginal Side, High Court,Madras.O.S.A.Nos.432 and 433 of 2008RS(CO)EU 29.12.2009.