SA/17/1980 of RAMAN UNNITHAN Vs KOCHUKUNJAMMA THANKAMMA on 8 July 1985

1. RamanUcnithan Balakrishnan l,'nnithan,· Vakkayil Veec:u, having alsoPuthuvalvila PuthenVeedu,Vettiyar,Navaikulam desom and village.· Vakkayil Veec:u, having alsoPuthuvalvila PuthenVeedu,Vettiyar,Navaikulam desom and village.

2. Kesavan Unnithan Balakrishna Pillai,Kaliyilil Veedu,Vettiyara,iavaikulam Desom, do.Village.

By Advs.M/s.P.Sukumaran Nair•.A. K. Chinnan.

&

R.E~PONDENTS:- Respornients :- . Plaintiff and Defendants 1,2 and4 to 6±

1. Kochukunjamma Thankamma,Vakkayil Veedu,having also Puthuvalvila PuthenVeedu,Vettiyara,Navaikulam Des om andVi11uge.2.Kunchamma Kochukunjamma, do. do.

Raman Unnithan Raghavan Unnithan of do. do.3.Raman Unnithan r.r0,nikantanUnnithan of do. do.4.s.KochukunjammaCb.ellamma of do.6.Kochukunjamma SumathyArnma of do.

ByAd.vs. I·Vs. V. Vyasan Poti & N. Sugathan.

ThisSecond Appeal having been heard on 8-7-1985, the courton the same day delivered the following:- -~ -- "'-8

the· plaint schedule property on 19-10-1971 •., dobtnnetl'ts$· aforesaid are invalid.The defendants,have no right over the plaint property.The plaintiffinstituted the suit for declaration of hPr titleand possession in respect of the plaint property andforputting up the sutern boundary oI the sa.me.A permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendantfrom trespassi'1g into the plaint schedule propertywas also prayed.forRecovery of possession was alsoprayed for in case the ?th/defendent happens to takeforcible possession of the plaint property.Defendants2,3 and 7 contested the suit.Execution of &xt. A1Will was denied.It was attacked as a f"abri_cateddocumeni;.Raman_lmnithan had no dispositive mindon the date oL..,.Jd)il>it "A1 •.. He was incompetent to -execute anyu;i11 at tl'lat time.By Ext • .81 settlementdeed itwas pr.ovicied that the properties which arenot al.lotted to anybody therein will be shared bythe plaintiff and defendants1 to 6 .equally afterthe death of Ramahnnithan.That provision willprevail.Thereafter,RamaniJnni than was incompetentto £ execute&t_t.A1Will.Ext. B6 partition deedexecuted after ,,the demise o.f RamanUnni ·than inpursuance to witch partiesare in possession of theproperties and ±xt.83 sale deed dated 19.10.1971& executed in favour of the· 7th defendant· shouldprevail.The ·1th dei'endant is in possession of theentire 14 cents.He is a bona fide purchaser forvalue.The suit should be dismissed.

..Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1.Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1etrial: court found that Ext.A1trial: court found that Ext.A1rial: court found that Ext.A1ial: court found that Ext.A1al: court found that Ext.A1 court found that Ext.A1urt found that Ext.A1rt found that Ext.A1t found that Ext.A1 found that Ext.A1ound that Ext.A1nd that Ext.A1d that Ext.A1 that Ext.A1hat Ext.A1at Ext.A1t Ext.A1 Ext.A1.A1A11

2)..Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1.Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1Ihetrial: court found that Ext.A1etrial: court found that Ext.A1trial: court found that Ext.A1rial: court found that Ext.A1ial: court found that Ext.A1al: court found that Ext.A1 court found that Ext.A1urt found that Ext.A1rt found that Ext.A1t found that Ext.A1 found that Ext.A1ound that Ext.A1nd that Ext.A1d that Ext.A1 that Ext.A1hat Ext.A1at Ext.A1t Ext.A1 Ext.A1.A1A11'~;;'.'genuine :arid valid and that the pl2intif·f'.ent.i.tled to get a declaration of title on the strengthof E.xt.At ;anp;·,to recover possession of the plaintschedule property from the 7th defendant.This-was.•.concurred by the lcwer ap-pellate court.Some modifi-cations regarding t•'-11#e p..ermanent ipjunction grantedagainst the 7th defendaritwere made by tne lower·-·-.8-apperlate court.·The decJaration regarding plaint i.ff 's.15.title and recoveryof possession of the plaintschedule.~property from the 7th defendant,ordered by the trial~-.-.- r_. t'court,wasconfirwed.1'he lower appellate court alsoheld that the- plairtiff c.ar recover usne profit.:;;-.·. -·,-__)..!'from the 7th gefenoant at· the rate ofHE • .30/- per annum:~·,._ ..from the date· of si,it till recovery. of possession.....Defendants 3 nd 7 have come up in Second Appeal~:the f'."':ol.lo. .wing- .. t ,:-hree questionsof law wereformulated as substantial questionsof law arisingsfor.com::.~deration in the SecondAppeal:

(i) . 'Mlether the due execution cf a ti.12.

can be proved without the pruductionofthe ori6inal~ill even if the conditionsin Section 65 of the EvidenceAct aresati&fied and secondary evidence isadmissible.

J{i-±) _:~etner :;en a proper interpretation ofExt~B1 s_ettlement deed the finding thatthe suit property was not disposed ofbythe executant under Ext. 131 is legal•.and.proper.

- '

·:W

~

,:}c...J -.f

circumstances,@f the case thefinding that the plaintiff has ov'.~e ·:r;( ..·t :he -/~s·;-u --:i·~-t -+ property is legal and.

rs.--«•.,/' ·-re

proper-

I heard counsel for the appellants,4).... ·-:· ·: _.,,- .....~.._,,.....,,r-r.P • .31.lkumaranNair, ano. C,.unsel fq the respondents,ivu..G. ..oThe_main poiptstressed was thatMr. -..· Yyasean P.Soti5•~econda_rY evi.dence of the-~will dated12.8.1956 (Ext.A1•••;;UC: :.. -c.sho__It was alse; contended.1[.1][l][d][ n][o][t][ h][a][v][e][ b][ee][n][ a][l][l][o][w][ed][.][_]U'l. going throughtp.atE..xt .. A1was not properly prov·ea.?tee.u:the relevant pleadings and the evidence in the case,t so9«5so..I am unable to acc-ept this submission.It is truethat the originalWill ofRamanUanithan dated"1;i,e+ei12.8,1958 was notproduced.&.--t-.A1 is only a certifi!'"s -.The certified co-py cf theWill_..sconsyv of the Wi":ll.e,and marked(Fxt.A1) was_-produced by the plsintiff~--, '.,' ..-. ' ...,· ..--.:-•· {.....by the defence. thtough "PW2/ -1.rhe only objection taken. ,.~.,.,.:•w~a_;.s.,_i.. ~t_;h.a·-t- h:::-e wa-s notg. c..5oigm_p+8etent tc prove the Will.T'"le :p1c'intfti'St,iled in i:he replies ti-:)n t11r,t t'.1.eof-1,{ir.ial of ,fflrt. A.1': 1:(8.s with the )rd def'enc.ant,one;_- __ .-.of the brothers.Latershe understood th,~t thel"fi11was with the ,-,¥t defendant, her mother.Se filed:.- J.A•.-...12:f.e:o:r-"11972 to direct the Ist defendant to"pro(:i~c\:i'ttiJi;.Jr1ginalV!ill.The Ist defendant did no-., protiut-e the'':'(ft"igirla],Will in. court.lne plaintiffto. '.ok.: st-epts t,;to):. d"":irect. the SubRegistrar concerned topr;9Qµ.9.e th~ ~iginal available in the RegistrationDepaf-1:tment. '.)' Ext. X1, the office ·copy of the\-,'ill wa~

_._ L,,__ ..

_._ L,,__ ..

Bx:t.~,Thumb.•i ? ;'?m;;p.:re\, -sis-iosn regis.ter-wa-1s-~ :: a·_.:.} _:, ,l.,;so provedby him.PWs 2 and3 a,~r:--;e...,.. tn.he· atte.-stors·t-1o• t.l;...h'e-~• originalWill.They proved~theWill.I·:·_t- -- i~ ·s-. · e··- ·v·i~dx:e~-nt~~ f~u-rom the above that ~xt.A1,certifi~dcop.y. - o· :~_-. -f--:.... t~-::-h- -~.;e r.-- -~ -eg : \A :i;_-stered document,was n.•roducedandmarked by P? e?he only ob,jection was tiH.,t he~.:a _,;.-,j,. ~'--.--•·<·.---•,.""' ij.--~".~-----·-wa:.rs no-t.:..-co.. -m-· ,p_;~..... .t...er\-."' _t:-·•~--t:-: .~, p.. :..r "oy:...e_ v1e f!ame.The attestors,Pis ? 82% 2roved due execution or Et.A1«i11. p. --·_,_..-_The p-'-l.-a,"'.t~- "=n"'":-".t', .,1~,l '-,, :........,,-;~>q': .o,__~·. -· ~'~P&,-.t.,J.-,O direc•t the Ist def·encant,w:io had the custOdy of' the original, to produce thesame..::he ·aic( l]Otdo so..Gxts. X1 and X2 are thezi:.csrel&vent ortin.ls av6ila:le in the office c° the.-. .-~ ~-- , -:. ; .. -lJ:_ ~ ; J,.-SubRegH,try t.--el;;.ting to Ext. 1.w, the 3rd def'en-•dant',> cmaete°):_.()rf,~·:•-).··-I.··-,Y s--- <t-_~·a...t.....ed"· -4.__ t ,h;:,;ton father's death-~all the re&o·-ds-•acre~"' in··_ th<e·, possession of the Ist. .,,_...... _.,. -· •defendant.{In.tyese circumstances, + h,::.ve no dcubt"Fh,. .·..,+ +,_..h ,.';;e_.u~,-~,--'-->«~ :-a: :.i-.--n,1;-t.•·,_~.f·.-:tv~4i/ j-ustif j\,.,_~--~(l)-·,i ,i:; - ..n- ' pr·.-~odtlo,i-n4..- ;\_)andrelying on Px6-~,- -1~/co: the;.._j3(r----.........lot•.....,~~Ra-man uanitnandated12.8.J~/J'he secondfiry evid~c·e· of ttheWill'·-~:...as srer h!if4 the courts elov.'section 65ybyof tht.::'::..vJ..cence ',11.LS ·c1.car..Ly attractea.In ,thisview of the m,:,tej. it. cannot M. sa~d either t';et hesecondaryevi-e:encEj of tneWill sncULU not na-ve beenIuerr:r.itted or thiit foe execution of theWill has not• lIbeen proved in thj$ case.Ext.A1will has been properl3and duly proVed. - the courts below were justificd inJplacing·rE j1ance ~ Ext.A1.

"and so Et.A1is inioipetent.The relevant recital'"'"'·-·.·::are ~r.3.ct~d-\n para 7 of the judgment of the lowe"'}.') tfD:-:~-.~ppthiate co$t: ' !t . is~iderit that the plaint-::".-.)properly is'.n~ d---~~lt-- w-!t'"'!i rn Ext.B1, nor was purpo·~~~- t6 )oe d.·a;:it -.,.~il.,-.- ·:,.-th -. :t amot the View that the proper"a&aft a#iikt.ji iere not dealt with aridwereotee &af3$Get#6rEt.B1 sett1eetdeed.

True Copy

(Asst.He.all!l::S't-~

~;'~~----'

I