Rules to proof of wills and settlements.

Veeraswami, J.- This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession and turns on the validity of a settlement deed dated 12th March, 1958, and executed by one Nainamalai Goundan. The properties in dispute admittedly belonged to him absolutely, he having obtained the same as and for his share at a partition on 15th July, 1943, between himself and Guruswami Goundan, his nephew. Nainamalai died in August, 1958, and the plaintiffs are his widow. who died pendente lite and four of his daughters and grandchildren by a predeceased daughter. The defendant is also a grandson of Nainamalai by his eldest daughter who too had predeceased him. On her marriage the eldest daughter with her husband and the defendant lived with Nainamalai and his wife. A few years before the suit, the defendant’s mother died and his father took a second wife from another family with the result that he sent out of the home of Nainamalai to live separately. But the defendant continued to live with Nainamalai, his grandfather and when he came of age he looked after his properties. Four of the plaintiffs who were Nainamalai’s daughters had all been married and were living with their relative husbands On 21st May, 1951, Nainamalai executed a will and registered the same. Nainamalai was 63 years of age then. By that will he bequeathed absolutely, after his life-time, the suit properties in favour of the defendant. The testator also made provisions in the will for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,500 to each of his four daughters and a sum of Rs. 500 to each of his two grandchildren. The testator expressed his hope in the will that he and his wife would be maintained by the defendant until their death and thereafter he would perform their obsequies. Nainamalai superseded his will by his settlement deed the provisions of which were substantially the same as in the will except that the settlor put the defendant in possession of the properties immediately and directed him to make the cash payments as provided in the will but within a period of two years. The settlor also mentioned that so far as the 6th plaintiff was concerned, she had already been paid a sum of Rs. 1,500 by him and therefore he made no further provision for her in the settlement. The plaintiffs claim that the will as well as the settlement were got executed under undue influence, coercion and fraud, while Nainamalai was ill, weak of intellect and feeble in body and mind and that therefore the plaintiffs as well as the defendant were entitled to share in the suit properties. The suit was resisted by the defendant denying the infirmities alleged in respect of the two documents and maintained that in: the circumstances of the case it was quite natural for his grandfather to have executed the will as also the settlement deed on the terms they contained in his favour and while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind. Though some argument was addressed to us as if there was any dispute about the execution of the two documents, it is clear from the pleadings that it was never in issue between the parties, In fact, the plaint proceeded on the footing the Nainamalai had executed them and the only question raised by the plaintiffs was that they could have no effect on the. grounds above mentioned. There were other issues relating to the question whether the first plaintiff or the defendant was in possession of the properties after the death

The Court below found in favour of the defendant on the issue whether the settlement deed was vitiated by undue influence, coercion and fraud, as well as the issue relating to possession of the suit properties. It is the propriety of the ending of the Court below as to the validity of the settlement deed that was under attack before us on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. Gopalaswami Iyengar for the appellants contends that the circumstances of the case clearly show that the will as well as the settlement deed were not natural and free dispositio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document