Appellant in his written statement inter alia companytended In terms of the aforementioned Will dated 29.11.1995, the suit property, having been bequeathed in his favour, has vested in him absolutely.
The said question arises in the following factual matrix.
153 of 1996 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
4 also filed a written statement alleging that the Will was number a genuine one and was prepared subsequent to 10.12.1995.
None else were present.
It was directed In the result, T.O.S. No.
I met Govinda Singh, PW 2 and PW 3 were present in the hospital.
Defendant No.
Appellant filed an affidavit in support of his case, which was attested and drafted by PW 4 Ms. Radhai in English.
The Will was typed by a typist who was available in the companyridors.
Jothi, Maya and himself.
Whether the alleged will dated 29.11.1995 said to have been executed is genuine one and, if so, who are the beneficiaries?
At about 2.00 P.M. I went to the hospital on the same day, read the companytents of the Will to the testator, then he affixed his left thumb impressionthen I signed the Will.
Govinda Singh gave instructions to Mrs. Radhai by 10.00 A.M. She brought the typed Will by 2.00 P.M., I was number present throughout in the hospital.
The said Govinda Singh died on 9.01.1996 leaving behind the appellant original defendant No.
Geetha and Vijaya plaintiffs and Shanthi and Uma original defendant Nos.
The typist was s. Teresa.
PW 3 Vishwanathan in the cross examination admitted I do number know whether Govinda Singh signed any other paper apart from Ex.
On or about 7.01.1999, an additional issue was framed, which reads as under Whether the D 4 is entitled to have any share in the schedule property?
36, First Cross Street, West C.I.T. Nagar, Madras 600 035 as also some movable properties.
In the said suit, the following issues were framed Whether the deceased Mr. M.K. Govinda Singh died intestate?
I do number have the manuscript.
He purported to have executed a Will in favour of his son, the appellant herein on 29.11.1995.
The plaintiffs of the suit No.
PW 4 Ms. Radhai in the cross examination stated I have numberarized the affidavit of Govinda Singh few days after attesting the Will.
153 of 1996 entered caveat in the said proceeding it was marked as O.S. No.
Defendant No.
PW 3 Vishwanathan deposed that at the instance of Govinda Singh, Radhai brought the typedwritten Will.
His wife Sakunthala Bai predeceased him.
The testator gave instructions to me to draft the Will.
4 of 1998.
1 and four daughters, viz.,
196 and 197 of 2001.
Teresa had number drafted the Will.
He was running a business of transport.
329 of 1996.
Govinda Singh was also a government companytractor.
He furthermore stated I was present when Govinda Singh gave instructions to Mrs. Radhai for preparation of the Will.
His daughters were also partners in the firm.
I was number by the side of Teresa when she typed the Will.
I numbered the instructions in a piece of paper, came to High Court and got the Will typed.
However, she admitted I do number remember whether the testator signed any other affidavit on 29.11.95 apart from the Will.
Effect of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short the Act by reason of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 for short the 2005 Act insofar as therein Section 23 has been omitted is the question involved herein.
It was on the aforementioned premise, Ramesh was impleaded as a party in the said suit.
Whether the suit for partition by the daughters of the deceased M.K. Govinda Singh, who died intestate, is maintainable or number?
In any event, having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, the suit for partition was number maintainable.
Inter alia on the premise that Govinda Singh died intestate and as disputes and differences arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants as regards enjoyment of the property, a suit for partition was filed on 11.03.1996 marked as C.S. No.
I drafted the Will in writing and gave it to her for typing.
2 and 3 .
Appellant did number speak of this affidavit.
Indisputably, the appellant also initiated a testamentary proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration with a companyy of the Will annexed thereto, which was marked as O.P. NO.
I have attested P 2 in my office.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said appeals have been dismissed.
4 Ramesh filed an application for impleadment in the said suit alleging that Govinda Singh had married one Saroja who was, thus, his second wife and through her he had two daughters and one son, viz.,
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
However, in the cross examination, she stated On 29.11.95 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning Vishwanathan came to my house and told that the testator wanted me to meet himI do number know the mother tongue of the testator.
Indisputably, the parties to the suit were residing in the premises in suit.
The property in suit was owned by one Govinda Singh.
4 in his written statement asked for partition of the property, Section 23 of the Act would number stand in the way of plaintiffs suit for partition.
PW 4 Ms. Radhai in her examination in chief stated On 29.11.1995 at 10.00 a.m. I went to Devaki Hospital.
However, in cross examination, he stated I do number know where the Will was typed.
I did number companypare the typed Will with the manuscript.
I only gave instructions to her.
Two intra court appeals were preferred against the said judgment and decree, which were marked as O.S.A. Nos.
Thereafter PW 3 signed the Will.
PW 2 going here and there in the hospital.
If so what is his share?
The suit property inter alia companysisted of residential premises being No.
