Shorn of unnecessary details, the dispute in this case relates to the genuineness of Ext.A1 Will said to have been executed by Karthiayani Amma. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Karthiayani Amma. The defendants 3 to 6 are the wife and the children of late son of Karthiayani Amma. 2. Suit for partition was laid claiming shares in terms of the Will said to have been executed by Karthiayani Amma. The 2nd defendant contested the case. According to her, the Will that is relied on by the plaintiffs is not executed by Karthiayani Amma and that is a concocted document. She was incapable of executing the Will at the relevant time and she was suffering from mental as well as physical ailments. Contending that the Will is not a genuine document, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. On the basis of the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 5 and had Exts.A1 to A11 marked. The contesting defendant had DW1 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 marked. Ext.X1 is 3rd party exhibit.
4. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the propounder of the Will has succeeded in establishing due execution and attestation of Will and therefore decree in terms of the Will was granted.
5. In the Second Appeal, the above finding is assailed.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew attention of this Court to the fact that the second page of the alleged Will namely, Ext.A1 does not contain the signature of the testator and there is no satisfactory explanation offered for the same. Further, the Will is dated 29.12.1995 and the registration was done at home only on 02.01.1996. It is also pointed out that the executor was not capable of executing Ext.A1 Will. The finding of the courts below that the due execution and attestation have been proved, according to the learned counsel, is erroneous and the Will should have been found against the plaintiffs.
6. Though the argument may look attractive at the first blush, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, there is no merit in the contention. True the second page of Ext.A1 does not contain the signature of the testator. But that is not a ground to discard the Will. It is significant to notice that the propounder of the Will has examined both the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe to the document. There is nothing to show that the testator was incapable of executing the Will. It is also stated that it was he who had made arrangements to have the Registrar come over to the house for registration of the document.
7. Both the courts below have elaborately referred to the evidence of PWs 2, 3, and 4 and had come to the conclusion that there is nothing to doubt their versions. Among them, PWs 3 and 4 are the attesting witnesses. PW5, as already stated, is the scribe. PW2 was the Registrar in office at the time of trial who spoke about the house registration and produced the relevant document in court. Of course, there is a statement by him that the signature of the testator in certain portions of Ext.A1 Will varies.
8. In the light of the fact that the attesting witnesses have spoken about the due execution and attestation of Will and since nothing has been shown as to why they should speak against the contensting defendant, the mere fact that there may be slight differences in the signature of testator by itself is not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the Will. It could not be said that the Will is unnatural or unjust. It has taken care of all her children. No one is left out in the Will and all children have been provided with shares. If, as a matter of fact, the Will is a concocted and fabricated document, it is inconceivable that it would have made just distribution of the assets. Further, the evidence of PW2 would clearly show that the Will was duly registered in the house. Though the registration by itself is not a ground to accept the genuineness of the Will, when the execution and attestation of the Will have been proved through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the registration of the Will become important and significant. It is an assurance to the court that the Will was duly executed by the testator.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Will.
Except for saying that Karthiayani Amma was advanced in age, no other aspects were pointed out. It is seen that the propounder of the Will has succeeded in establishing that Ext.A1 was duly executed by Karthiayani Amma.
10. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, had come to the conclusion that there is no reason to doubt the version given by the attesting witnesses and the Scribe as well as PW2 and there is nothing to show from the documents or from circumstances that the execution of Ext.A1 Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances. After having gone through the judgments of the courts below and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds no ground to take a different view from that taken by the courts below.
In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is only to be dismissed. I do so.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.