The court emphasized that the burden to prove the genuineness of a Will lies with the propounder, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances, leading to its rejection and the declaration of intestacy.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. The Appellant is the Defendant No.5 in the suit. The Respondent No.1 is the Original Plaintiff, the Respondent No.2 is the Defendant No.1, who was later transposed as the Additional Plaintiff No.2. The Respondents 3 to 5 are the Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

2. During the pendency of this Appeal, the Respondent No.3 died and his legal heirs were impleaded as Additional Respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8.

3. The original Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint A, B & C schedule properties on the allegation that the said properties belonged to the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Smt. Gouri Ponnamma, who died on 01.11.1994.

4. Plaint A schedule property contains two items of immovable properties. Item No.1 is 35‰ cents of land in Sy.No.952/2 & 953 of Vanchiyoor village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Item No.2 property is 9 Acres and 6‰ cents of land in Sy.No.2913 of Alamcode village in Chirayinkeezhu Taluk. Plaint B schedule property is the deposit in the name of Gouri Ponnamma in Fixed Deposit, Savings Bank and Current Account & accrued interest with Syndicate Bank Main and Fort or any other branches or in any such other banks. Plaint C schedule property is all Deposits and Fixed Deposits, Assets of stock in trade of N.C. & Company, Thiruvananthapuram.

5. The suit was filed on 15.11.1994. The material averments in the suit are that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are the children of a Govt. Contractor, late Narayanan Chellappan, and late Gouri Ponnamma. They died on 30.04.1977 and 01.11.1994 respectively. Plaint Schedule Item No.1 property was originally the joint property of the father and the mother, and other items of properties belonged to the father. On the basis of Ext.B19 Will dated 10.08.1976, the entire Plaint Schedule Properties were bequeathed in the name of Gouri Ponnamma. The District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, granted Letters of Administration with respect to the said Will in favour of Gouri Ponnamma as per the Decree in O.S.No.9/1977. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, with the father, executed major contracts of hydroelectric projects at Idukki and Kuttiyadi for the K.S.E.B. Since there arose disputes with respect to the said works, O.S.No.25/1974 and O.P.(Arb.)No.26/1971 were instituted before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and O.S.No.1/1975 was instituted before the Compensation Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, and the said suits were pending when the father expired. The said suits were decreed, and the mother received several lakhs of rupees from the court and it is understood that the mother has made plaint B schedule deposits. Father was the managing partner of the firm, ‘N.C. & Company’. After the demise of the father, the mother and Defendant No.5 were continuing the business. N.C. & Company had major contracts in the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Defendant No.5 was carrying on the business along with the mother. The firm had huge assets by way of deposits and heavy equipment. The assets of the firm are described in Plaint C schedule. The mother died intestate and has not alienated any of the properties owned by her and obtained from the father as per Ext.B19 Will. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are Hindu Ezhavas, and they are governed by the Hindu Succession Act in the matter of succession. The Plaint Schedule Properties are liable to be partitioned among the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the Plaintiff is entitled to get 1/6 share out of the same.

6. All the Defendants filed separate Written Statements in the suit.

7. The first Written Statement was filed by the Defendant No.5