FATHIMA BEEVI
KUNJULEKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
RAMAKRISHNAN – Respondent
1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. The trial court in granting a preliminary decree has disallowed the plaintiff's claim for share in items 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 22 of the plaint schedule upholding the defendants 'contention that these items had been bequeathed by the plaintiff's mother under Ext. D11 will dated 18-1-1966. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was unsuccessful, hence the second appeal.
2. The only question that now falls for consideration is whether Ext. D11 is a genuine will duly executed by the plaintiff's mother Gouri. Gouri died on 16-9-1966. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Gouri. Defendants 5 to 12 are her grand children. These grand children are the beneficiaries under the will. Gouri had absolute right over 3 acres 45 cents of property and equity of redemption over another 1 acre and 43 cents. The property dealt with under Ext. D11 consists of 65 cents out of the 3 acres 45 cents and 87 cents out of the 1 acre 43 cents. The items 1 and 2,5,6.8 and 22 are thus included in the will in the schedules A to D thereof. The defendants 5 to 7, the children of the 2nd defendant are given the A schedule items;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.