The court ruled that the first appellate court's analysis of the Will was incorrect due to lack of jurisdiction and insufficient pleading by the plaintiff regarding suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, in A.S. No.160 of 2010, by which, the first appellate court reversed the dismissal of the suit by the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, in O.S. No.349 of 2004.

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

The plaintiff claims that she and one Latha are the daughters of late P.R. Sasidharan Nair and late Smt. Lalitha Bai. Smt. Lalitha Bai had another daughter by name, Preetha, in another marriage, and the plaintiff, Latha, Preetha and their mother jointly owned 17 cents of Property. The right of the mother and Latha was released in favour of the plaintiff and Preetha. Since the plaintiff was working at Agra, she executed a power of attorney in favour of her father to manage the said property. The father, together with Preetha, sold the property, and the plaintiff’s share was held by the father as a trustee, and by utilising the portion of the said fund, plaint schedule property was purchased by sale deed No.1157 of 1991. Later, the marriage between the plaintiff’s father and Lalitha Bai, fell apart, and after the separation of the marital relationship, the father developed a relationship with one Sarada Amma, whose daughter is the defendant. The plaintiff’s father was living along with Sarada Amma and residing in the building in the plaint schedule property, where the defendant used to visit occasionally. The father had executed a Will dated 21.4.1993 and registered as document No.7. Sarada Amma died on 26.5.1998, and therefore, the stipulation regarding her right of residence elapsed. On 22.2.1999, the father of the plaintiff, Sasidharan Nair, died, and thereafter the plaintiff became the absolute owner. It is further stated that Sasidharan Nair had executed a Will on 5.2.1996, bequeathing the property in favour of Sarada Amma and later cancelled the said Will and executed a fresh Will on 19.6.1998 in favour of the defendant. The Will is not executed with free consent and volition and thus is vitiated. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff has no right over the property and that the property exclusively belonged to the defendant by virtue of the Will dated 19.6.1998. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B7 documents were produced, and DW1 to DW3 were examined. DW2 is the attesting witness of the Will and DW3 is the scribe. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff pointed out several circumstances as suspicious, making the Will unreliable, the Will stands unequivocally proved by examination of the attesting witness and thus found that the plaintiff failed to prove the medical condition of late Sasidharan Nair and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.160 of 2010 before the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The first appellate court surprisingly proceeded to compare the signatures in the Will in order to find out whether the execution was proper and concluded that the signatures in the Will differs and proceeded to hold that the propounder has not dispelled the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in part by declari