The legality of a Will cannot be challenged through parallel suits if probate proceedings are pending; retrial is mandated to ensure fair evaluation of evidence.

For Respondents :Mr.J.Senthamilarasu for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Selvam for R3 to R5 JUDGMENT Short fact of the case is that, one Bhakthavatchala Reddy had four daughters and few properties. He died on 04.11.2011. One of his daughter by name Mrs.Vasantha claims that her father died intestate. Whereas his grand-son born to another daughter by name Mrs.Banumathi, claims that he left a Will dated 08.09.2000, in which he has bequeathed the suit property to him. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed for declaring the Will as illegal and the relief of partition. Hence, the appeal is filed.

2. Facts in detail:

Suit is for declaration that the Will dated 08.09.2000 executed by Bhakthavatchala Reddy in favour of Mr.E.Ravikumar (grand son of Bhakthavatchala Reddy born to his daughter Mrs.Banumathi) as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff Mrs.V. Vasantha, the daughter of Bhakthavatchala Reddy and further relief of partition to divide the suit property into 4 parts and allot ¼ share to the plaintiff.

3. The defendants are Chandrakantham, the wife of Bhakthavatchala Reddy, Mrs.Banumathi and Mrs.Rajeswari, the two other daughters of Bhakthavatchala Reddy and E.Ravikumar grand son. Pending suit, the plaintiff, V.Vasantha died and her son Venktesan got impleaded and contested the suit. The third defendant Rajeswari died and her legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 5 to 7.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that 4 acres of agricultural land at Kunnapakkam Village held by Vijayaraghavan Reddy, the husband of the first plaintiff, Mrs.Vasantha (deceased). After the demise of Vijayaraghavan Reddy on 16.11.1985, leaving behind his wife Vasantha and son Venkatesan, (plaintiff 1 and 2), his father Bhakthavatchala Reddy sold the 4 acres land for Rs.90,000/- in the year 1990 and from the sale proceeds purchased half ground of land in the name of the first plaintiff Vasantha and another half ground of land in the name of Banumathi (2^nd defendant) at Iyyapanthangal. He retained with him the balance amount of Rs.54,000/-.

Besides, Bhakthavatchala Reddy had a property at Senjeri Village purchased in the year 1979, in which he had constructed building and earning rental income. Baktavatsala Reddy died on 04.11.2001. During his life time, he had promised that he will bequeath his properties equally to all his four daughters. While so, when she applied for EC on 23.07.2009, she came to know that a Will of Bhakthavatchala Reddy, allegedly executed by him on 08.09.2000 registered as document No: 90 of 2000 at SRO-III, Virugambakkam bequeath the property in favour of E.Ravikumar. The will is a fabricated document. E.Ravikumar the fourth defendant in collusion with other defendants try to cheat the plaintiff.

5. The said suit not probated and the claim of E.Ravikumar that he had initiated probate proceedings, is not correct, since she had not received notice in the probate proceedings. The defendants 2 and 4 are collecting the rent from the property to a tune of about Rs.10,000/- per month, but not sharing it with the first plaintiff, however getting her signature in blank papers for the past 9 years. The son and daughter of the second defendant are threatening with dire consequence when the plaintiff ask for account and division of property.

6. The first, second and fourth defendants had filed written statement, wherein the plaint averments are denied except the relationship of the parties. According to them, the suit property is the absolute property of Bhakthavatchala Reddy which he purchased on 05.09.1979 from his own fund and he has every right to deal with it. He had executed a Will on 08.09.2000 in respect of this property in favour of the 4th defendant E.Ravikumar and got it duly registered. It is incorrect to say that Bhakthavatchala Reddy assured to give his property equally to his 4 daughters. In fact, he during his life time, itself settled his properties to all his other 3 daughters. The only daughter, who was not given any property was the 2^nd def