Raman Ucnithan Balakrishnan & Ors v. M/s.P.Sukumaran Nair & A. K. Chinnan

The defendants The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of hPr title and possession in respect of the plaint property and forputting up the sutern boundary oI the sa.me. A permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant from trespassi'1g into the plaint schedule property was also prayed.for Recovery of possession was also prayed for in case the ?th/defendent happens to take forcible possession of the plaint property. Defendants 2,3 and 7 contested the suit. Execution of &xt. A1 Will was denied. It was attacked as a f"abri_cated documeni;. Raman_lmnithan had no dispositive mind on the date oL..,.Jd)il>it "A1 •.. He was incompetent to - execute any u;i11 at tl'lat time. By Ext • .81 settlement deed it was pr.ovicied that the properties which are not al.lotted to anybody therein will be shared by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 .equally after the death of Ramahnnithan. That provision will prevail. Thereafter, Raman iJnni than was incompetent to £ execute &t_t.A1 Will. Ext. B6 partition deed executed after ,,the demi se o.f Raman Unni ·than in pursuance to witch partiesare in possession of the properties and ±xt.83 sale deed dated 19.10.1971 & executed in favour of the· 7th defend ant · should prevail. The ·1th dei'endant is in possession of the entire 14 cents. He is a bona fide purchaser for value. The suit should be dismissed. 2) ..Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1 '~;;'.'genuine :arid valid and that the pl2intif·f ent.i.tled to get a declaration of title on the strength . ' of E.xt.At ;anp;·,to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the 7th defendant. This -was .•. concurred by the lcwer appellate court. Some modifi- cations regarding t'-1e permanent ipjunction granted • 1#.. against the 7th def endarit were made by tne lower -.8 apperlate court. ·-· ·The decJaration regarding plaint i.ff 's title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule .

5. property from the 7th defendant, ordered by the trial ~ 1 . ~- .-.- r_. t' court, was confirwed. 1'he lower appellate court also held that the plairtiff car recover usne profit.:; - . ;· --. -...·,__) ' . ! from the 7th gefenoant at· the rate of HE • .30/- per annum ~ ·,.__ .. : from the date· of si,it till recovery. of possession. Defendants 3 nd 7 have come up in Second Appeal~ . . . . :the following three questions of law were '."': . . . - .. ,:- s formulated as substantial questions of law arising for .com::.~deration in the Second Appeal: (i) . 'Mlether the due execution cf a ti.12. can be proved without the pruduction of the ori6inal ~ill even if the conditions in Section 65 of the Evidence Act are sati&fied and secondary evidence is admissible. J{i-±) _:~etner :;en a proper interpretation of Ext~B1 s_ettlement deed the finding that the suit property was not disposed of by the executant under Ext. 131 is legal •. and.proper. « re ·- •.,/' . -- 4) - ' ~ ,c...J:} -. f circumstances,@f the case the finding that the plaintiff has over ·the - suit property is legal and. proper /~ ·;- --:· ( .. : ~- -+ '.~ ·::; I heard counsel for the appellants, · -:· · : _.,, - .....~.._,,.....,, .... r-r.P • .31.lkumaran Nair, ano. C,.unsel fq the respondents, ·:W ••• 1 ; The_main poipt stressed was that Mr.. Yyasan Poti • . - · e ivu..G. . .o 5 .S ; UC: :.. -c_-~__. ~econda_rY evi.dence of the will dated 12.8.1956 (Ext.A1 .1ld not have been allowed._ It was alse; contended. tp.at E..xt .. A1 was not properly prov·ea. ? tee.u: U'l. going through the relevant pleadings and the evidence in the case, I am unable to acc-ept this submission. It is true t so9 «5so.. that the original Will of Raman Uanithan dated " 1 ,+ ;i e

12.8,1958 was not produced. &.--t-.A1 is only a certifi! The certified co-py cf the Will ' " s -. cony of the Will. _..s sv ": e , (Fxt.A1) was_-produced by the plsintiff ' ..-. ' ... ,· ..--. ~-, '., - .. thtough "PW2/ -1.rhe only objection taken •· {..... :- and marked by the defence . ,.~.,.,.:• : - ·- -:: was that he was not competent tc prove the Will. ~_;..,_i.. ~_;. T'"le :p1c'intfti'St,iled in i:he replies ti-:)n t11r,t t'.1.e g...5 ig _+8 - of-1,{ir.ial of ,fflrt. A.1': 1:(8.s with the )rd def' enc.ant, one ; _- __ .-. of the brothers. was with the ,-,¥t defendant, her mother. Se filed Later she understood th,~t the l"fi11 :.- J.A•.-...12:f.e :o:r-"11972 to direct the Ist defendant to pro(:i~c\:i'"ttiJi;.Jr1ginal V!ill. The Ist defendant did no -., protiut--e the'':'(ft"igirla], t ,;t):."": '..: - . . took steps to direct the Sub Registrar concerned to Will in. court. lne plaintiff pr;9Qµ.9.e th~ ~iginal available in the Registration Depaf-1:tment. '.)' Ext. X1, the office ·copy of the \-,'ill wa~ __,,__ . . L. Bx:t.~, Thumb . impression register • ? ;'?;;.: 3 are the attestors \, -i-s . ,~ :--; ...,.. n. · --1 -~ ::·_.:.} _:, ,.,; was also proved to the original ·-1 • .l;...' -~• by him. PWs 2 and Will. They proved~ the Will. It is evident from the above that ~xt.A1, ·:·_ ~~~u- ~x:~-- - ·· ··· -. - . --~ · - . . •· -. -- -- -~ - - -~.; . -· :~_-. : \A :;_- --:...~-::- ~.:a _,;.-,j,,. ~' - -- copy of. the registered document, was nroduced certifi~d andmarked by P? e?he only ob,jection was tiH.,t he was not -comp~ter\t:--t~ proye_ v1e f!ame. The attestors, .... : :-: :.r Pis ? 82% 2 proved due execution or Et.A1 «i11. _The pla,tn.t,1~,,,;qo_~ ~~P&,,J,O direct the Ist def·encant, ,_;..... .... _,_ ..- -.:.. _·•~- :.. " . --· -."' --· ., .. · - ". ~- .. -- • <·. ""' .• --~ -- ,. ij. - -'-.. - "''. ~- "="'":-"' ., ,l '- :........,-~>': .,_ ·. -· ' -.t. . - • w:io had the custOdy of' the original, to produce the -~ . .,,_...... _.,. · - c . . ·- . · _ · • • J . ,· - ~"' . - -l :. ; . - :_ ~ ; J, -~ ~-- , - same. '>me :•-··-.··-, --- <_· .::he ·aic( l]Ot do so. zi:.cs .Gxts. X1 and X2 are the rel&vent ortin.ls av6ila:le in the office c° the Sub RegH,try t.--el;;.ting to Ext. 1. w, the 3rd def'en- -~ .... 4 • "· .... -.__ , dant, cate°):_.()rf~).IY stated th;:,;t on father's death all the re&odsare in the, possession of the Ist defendant. F ·.,+ +' h .,h e_u «int..fv4i just if j_~(l)in prodtlo,i-n4 ;and {In.tyese circumstances, + h,::.ve no dcubt ~-- , -- ·,i:; .. . ~,,--~: :,1" ·-~ relying on Px6, 1/cc o: the;j3lot Raman uanitnan ....,~~- dated 12.8.J~ /J'he secondfiry evid~c·e· of tthe Will .. as srery h!if4by the courts elov.'section 65 view of the m,:,tej. it. cannot M. sa~d either t';et he ::..vJ..cence ', 11 .LS ·c1.car..Ly attractea. ··,~~/- ·.-:t In ,this of tht.::' (r-----......... ·-~ : -~--'> :-a. -.--; -•_ .. . _.. ,.;; -~-- .-\_) \,.,-- -~ ' •. .._ . <· , . ' . secondary evi-e:encEj of tne Will sncULU not nave been - uerr:r.itted or thiit foe execution of the Will has not been proved in thj$ case. Ext.A1 will has been properl3 and duly proVed. - the courts below were just if icd in I I• l J placing·rE jance ~ Ext.A1. 1 '·-"' ·.·:: '}.') tf D:- : ~- " and so Et.A1is inioiipetent. The relevant recital "'are ~r.3.ct~d-\n para 7 of the judgment of the lowe . ~ppthiate co$t: ' !t . is" ~iderit that the plaint -::".-.)properly is'.n~ d~lt w!t!i rn Ext.B1, nor was purpo :t am'"'ot the View that the proper · t6 )oe d~a:it -~il.th~- "a&aft a#iikt.ji iere not dealt with arid 6rEt.B1 sett1eet otee &af3$Get # deed. ---~-- :. ·, .,.~,-.- - - .· ; . True Copy (Asst.He.all!l::S't -~ ~ ;'~--' ~-- I