Point of Law : In light of provisions of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1923 and Section 68 of Evidence Act test shall be as to whether testator signed Will and whether he understood nature and effect of dispositions in Will.

JUDGMENT :

Ajithkumar, J.

1. These Original Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The common order, Ext.P2 dated 31.8.2018 of the Rent Control Revisional Authority (Additional District Judge- III), Thalassery, in RCRP Nos.1 and 2 of 2006, which were filed under the proviso to Section 14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is under challenge. As per Ext.P2, order of the Execution Court (Principal Munsiff), Kannur, dated 19.10.2015, Ext.P1 was reversed.

2. R.C.P.Nos.63 and 67 of 1996 were filed by one Puthenpurayil Rajan. He was the landlord. He filed the Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order of eviction became final when this Court on 31.5.2011 dismissed the respective Rent Control Revisions preferred by the tenants. As per the order in the Rent Control Revisions, this Court directed the Execution Court to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance till 31.12.2011, subject to the following conditions :-

“The revision petitioners file an affidavit before the execution court or the rent control court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 31.12.2011 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within six weeks from today and also to pay occupational charges at the existing contract rent rate to the respondent without fail. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein.”

3. The respective tenants, who are the petitioners herein, did not file an affidavit as directed above. The landlord Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan filed execution petitions for getting delivery of the respective petition schedule rooms. He could not, however, take delivery of the premises for, he died on 13.12.2011.

4. After the death of Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan, the respondent herein filed E.P.Nos.307 and 308 of 2012 in the respective Rent Control Petitions before the Execution Court for getting delivery of the petition schedule premises. She claimed rights under an unregistered Will executed by Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan. The execution petitions were contested by the petitioners on identical grounds. It was contended that the Will propounded by the respondent is a forged one and that was why the execution petitions filed by Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan, namely, E.P.Nos.91 and 99 of 2011 were not pursued. The Will propounded by the respondent is a fabricated one and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It was further contended that eviction was sought by Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan on the ground that he wanted the petition schedule rooms for his starting an automobile workshop with parking facility and as he is no more, order of eviction has become inexecutable.

5. The respondent claimed before the Execution Court that she was the legatee under Ext. A1, Will dated 7.9.2003 executed by Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan and hence she is the legal representative entitled to execute the orders of eviction. That apart, Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan obtained the petition schedule premises from her wife, Smt. Vinodhini, on her death, and as the couple died issueless, this property whould naturally devolve upon her relatives only. The respondent contended that she being the daughter of the sister of Smt. Vinodhini, she is an heir by operation of the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore there is nothing unusual in executing such a Will. Accordingly, the respondent contended that she had every right to get the orders of eviction executed. The other contention that with the death of Sri. Puthenpurayil Rajan, the ground for eviction ceased to exist and hence the order of eviction has become inexecutable is refuted contending that on becoming the order of eviction final and the property has become assets of Sri. Puthenp