High Court Validates Will, Equitably Distributes Estate, Grants Partial Claim, Awards Mesne Profits

Irudayam Ammal And Ors. Versus Salayath Mary

Irudayam Ammal And Ors. Versus Salayath Mary - AIR 1973 Mad 421 Issues Involved:
1. Validity and genuineness of the Will dated 12-3-1941.
2. Plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the properties.
3. Plaintiff's claim for mesne profits.
4. Plaintiff's failure to prove acquisition of certain properties with the income from the testator's properties.
5. Conduct of the parties and implications on the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Genuineness of the Will:
The primary issue revolves around the Will dated 12-3-1941 (Ex. B-4). The trial court's judgment was challenged on the grounds that the contesting defendants had not satisfactorily established the truth and genuineness of the Will. The High Court noted that the certified registration copy of the Will from the Sub-Registrar's office in Burma indicated that Susai Udayar executed and registered the Will on 12-3-1941. The Will distributed properties equitably among the daughters and the son, deeming it a 'perfectly rational Will.' The court emphasized that the first defendant had no motive to suppress the Will, whereas the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 had a powerful motive to keep it back. The evidence suggested that Irudaya Udayar, the husband of the fifth defendant, was behind the litigation and had likely pilfered the original Will. The High Court concluded that the first defendant had satisfactorily accounted for the non-production of the original Will and proved its validity through other acceptable evidence, supplemented by legal presumptions.

2. Plaintiff's Entitlement to a Share in the Properties:
The plaintiff claimed a one-fourth share in the properties of Susai Udayar, particularly those in India. The trial court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff for specific items in the A schedule but dismissed the claim for other items in the A schedule and the entire B schedule. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the plaintiff failed to prove that the other properties were acquired by Arokiam with the income from Susai Udayar's properties. The court also highlighted that the plaintiff and her sisters did not assert their rights for over 11 years, indicating their awareness of the Will and their lack of entitlement under it.

3. Plaintiff's Claim for Mesne Profits:
The trial court awarded mesne profits to the plaintiff only from 12-3-1956, the date when the plaintiff issued the notice claiming her share. The High Court found no reason to alter this decision, as the plaintiff did not assert her rights earlier, despite misunderstandings arising between the parties.

4. Plaintiff's Failure to Prove Acquisition of Certain Properties:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for certain properties in the A schedule and the entire B schedule, as she failed to prove that these were acquired with the income from Susai Udayar's properties. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting that the plaintiff could not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim.

5. Conduct of the Parties and Implications on the Case:
The High Court scrutinized the conduct of the parties, particularly the plaintiff and Irudaya Udayar. It noted that the plaintiff was a tool in the hands of Irudaya Udayar, who had a history of dishonest behavior and was responsible for the litigation. The court drew adverse inferences against the plaintiff for suppressing the original Will and failing to examine key witnesses like Irudaya Udayar. The court also considered the delay in filing the suit and the lack of action by the plaintiff and her sisters for over 11 years as indicative of the Will's validity.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
The High Court delivered separate judgments for the appeals. In A.S. No. 321 of 1965, the appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. In A.S. No. 562 of 1970, the cross-appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the court-fee due in the appeal.