The propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution; failure to do so results in rejection of the Will.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The supplementary defendants 22, 23 and 26 to 28 in a suit for partition are the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaint schedule property comprised in item Nos.1 to 9 belonged to Karuvarakandiyil Karunakaran Nair. While so, Karunakaran Nair expired on 20.8.1985 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. Late Karunakaran Nair had three wives. The first wife, namely Lakshmibai, expired and defendants 1 to 4 are the children born to Karunakaran Nair from Lakshmibai. The 5^th and 11^th defendants are the 2^nd and 3^rd wives of late Karunakaran Nair and defendant Nos.6 to 10 and defendant Nos.12 to 21 are the children born out of the said wedlocks. The plaint schedule property are in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. Before the death of Karunakaran Nair, he never made any arrangements or executed any document by way of gift or Will bequeathing the properties to his legal heirs. Since the plaintiff did not want to continue the joint possession of the properties, on 15.8.2004, a lawyer notice was issued seeking partition. Since the defendants were not amenable to it, the suit was filed.

Contentions of the defendants

3. Late Karunakaran Nair had properties apart from those included as item Nos.1 to 9 in the plaint. An extent of 96.5 cents comprised in re-survey No.21/4 along with item No.5 of the plaint schedule property is not included in the suit. The extent of property shown in item No.3 in the plaint, having an extent of 1.3… Acre is not correct. In fact, the correct extent is 2.6‰ Acres. Likewise, the description of item No.7 is also not correct; instead of 1.59 Acres, it is 2.10 Acres. Moreover, an extent of 1.52 Acres in Narakkod Amsom Desom is not seen included in the plaint property. The status of plaintiff and defendants 5 to 21 as the legal heirs of Karunakaran Nair was denied. It was also denied that Karunakaran Nair had three wives. In fact, according to the defendants, Karanakaran Nair had only one wife named Lakshmibai, who is the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff is not entitled to partition of the property into 22 equal shares. Karunakaran Nair had no relationship, whatsoever, with the 5^th and 11^th defendants and never solemnised any marriage with them. As far as item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, it was contended that late Karunakaran Nair executed a Will on 14.7.1985. Since defendant Nos.1 to 3 were residing at Bombay, the plaint schedule property as well as the properties not included therein were being managed by the plaintiff and other defendants. The averment that the 1^st defendant had declined to sign the partition deed on 20.8.2004 was also denied.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A44 were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked and DW1 to DW3 w