{"id":239576,"date":"2006-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006"},"modified":"2016-05-12T20:33:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T15:03:01","slug":"elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","title":{"rendered":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 370 of 1994(A)\n\n\n\n1. ELSY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. V.K.RAJU\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.K.BRAHAMANANDAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :20\/10\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n\n                                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                                    A.S. NO. 370 OF 1994\n                                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                        Dated, this the 20th  day of  October   2006\n\n\n                                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        Defendant  Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 in O.S. No. 15\/86 on the file of the   first Addl.<\/p>\n
District     Court,   Ernakulam   are   the   appellants   in   this   appeal.     The   proceedings<\/p>\n
before the court below originated as probate O.P. 61\/1986 filed   by invoking the<\/p>\n
testamentary   and   intestate   jurisdiction   of   the   District  Judge   under   Sections   266<\/p>\n
and 268 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for<\/p>\n
short).  The first respondent V.K. Raju was the petitioner in the above probate O.P.<\/p>\n
        2.      The case of the petitioner  in the lower court can be summarised as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Late   E.A.   Thomas,   S\/o.   Augustine,   was   permanently   residing   in<\/p>\n
Amaravathy, Fort Kochi.  He  died on 7-1-1980 at building No. X\/602, Amaravathy,<\/p>\n
Cochin.   The said  Thomas had duly executed from the aforesaid  house   his last<\/p>\n
will and testament on 9-2-1985 produced along with the O.P.  The petitioner is the<\/p>\n
executor  named in the will.  The petitioner has truly  set forth in  Schedule No. I all<\/p>\n
the properties and credits which the deceased possessed or was entitled to get at<\/p>\n
the time of his death.  The petitioner has also  truly set forth in Schedule No. II the<\/p>\n
items which by law are allowed to be   deducted.   Respondents 1 to 10 are the<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                        -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
widow and children of deceased Thomas and   they are his legal heirs as<\/p>\n
per the Cochin  Christian Succession Act.  No application  has been made<\/p>\n
to any  District Court or to High Court for probate or letters  of administration<\/p>\n
of   the   will   with   or   without   the   will   annexed.     The   petitioner   prays   that   a<\/p>\n
probate   may   be   granted   to   him     having   effect   throughout       the   State   of<\/p>\n
Kerala in respect of the properties mentioned in the O.P.<\/p>\n
        3.       Upon   the filing of the above O. P.   the court below issued<\/p>\n
notice to the respondents and  also ordered publication  of the same in the<\/p>\n
Gazette and  Malayala Manorama  daily.   The court below had also called<\/p>\n
for the valuation statement from the District Collector.<\/p>\n
        4.       The respondents to the  original petition  were  the following:<\/p>\n
        i)   Benny Thomas (widow of late E.A. Thomas)<\/p>\n
        ii)  Elsy<\/p>\n
        iii) Sandhyavu @ Kunhappan<\/p>\n
        iv) Philomina<\/p>\n
        v)  Francis<\/p>\n
        vi) E.T. Treasa<\/p>\n
        vi) Sebastian @ Peter<\/p>\n
        vii)E.T. Antony<\/p>\n
        ix) E.T. Augustine<\/p>\n
        x)  E.T.  Josey<\/p>\n
The Ist respondent above is the widow and the other respondents to the<\/p>\n
O.P. are the sons and daughters of late Thomas.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5.          Upon   receipt     of   notice   in   the   above   original   petition<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                       -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents  1 and 10 above  filed a joint statement to the effect that  they<\/p>\n
have absolutely no objection to the grant  of probate to the will executed by<\/p>\n
late E.A Thomas.  Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 above filed separate affidavits<\/p>\n
to the effect that late Thomas had not executed any will during his lifetime<\/p>\n
and   that   the   will   set   up   by   the   petitioner   was   a   concocted   document<\/p>\n
prepared in collusion with the 9th respondent.  Respondents 2 to 5   above<\/p>\n
had also filed a joint objection to the grant of probate.<\/p>\n
        6.       In   view   of   the   contest   by     the   respondents   other   than<\/p>\n
respondents   1,4,   6,8,9   and         10   to   the   probate   O.P.,   the   O.P.   was<\/p>\n
converted   into   a       regular   suit   and   re-numbered   as     O.S.   No.   15\/1986.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the appellants herein namely, defendants 2, 3, 5 and   7 alone<\/p>\n
objected   to   the   grant   of   probate   by     filing   a   written   statement.     The   4th<\/p>\n
respondent to the O.P. withdrew her contest and filed a statement to the<\/p>\n
effect that she has no objection to the grant of probate.<\/p>\n
        7.   In the joint written statement filed by defendants 2, 3,   5 and 7<\/p>\n
they  contended inter alia as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        E.A. Thomas, father of defendants 2 to   9 and husband of the first<\/p>\n
defendant     had    never executed  any    will during  his lifetime nor had  he<\/p>\n
appointed any executor.   Deceased Thomas was residing in the property<\/p>\n
along with all the defendants.  The house wherein he was residing  with the<\/p>\n
members     of     his     family   belonged   to   him.     Deceased   Thomas   always<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                     -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
wanted   all his assets   to be   enjoyed by all his legal heirs.   He was not<\/p>\n
keeping well for some time  before his death.  At that time he did not have<\/p>\n
the requisite capacity to decide matters independently.   It appears that a<\/p>\n
loan was availed in his name from the bank by the 9th  defendant and   at<\/p>\n
that time  the father might   have signed some papers without knowing his<\/p>\n
liability under the aforesaid transaction.   Deceased Thomas did not   have<\/p>\n
any   capacity     to   express   his   intention     to   create   a   will   or   appoint   an<\/p>\n
executor   for the said purpose.   It was not at all necessary for Thomas to<\/p>\n
make a  will.  After the death of Thomas, the plaintiff who is a close friend of<\/p>\n
the   9th  defendant   Augustine   had   colluded   with   Augustine   for  fraudulently<\/p>\n
creating  such a will without the knowledge of Thomas.  This was with the<\/p>\n
intention of cheating the other legal heirs of Thomas.  The idea behind the<\/p>\n
execution of such a will was to obtain the house exclusively in favour of the<\/p>\n
9th defendant Augustine.  The plaintiff was supporting  the 9th defendant to<\/p>\n
perpetrate   the   illegality.     The   plaintiff   who   is   an   ex-employee   of   the<\/p>\n
Corporation   of Cochin had by exercising  his influence got the assessment<\/p>\n
of the building  transferred  in the name of the 9th defendant.  The will is a<\/p>\n
concocted document and    the witnesses thereunder are only supporters of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the 9th  defendant.   Deceased Thomas had     independent<\/p>\n
means   to   purchase   buildings   in   his   own   name   and   to   effect   necessary<\/p>\n
repairs to the same.   He had no connection whatsoever with the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                    -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
There was no possibility or occasion for late Thomas to  discuss any matter<\/p>\n
relating to his properties with the plaintiff.  Deceased Thomas who was not<\/p>\n
at all   educated was influenced by the 9th defendant   with the assistance<\/p>\n
and   connivance of the plaintiff  with a view  to  claim  exclusive right over<\/p>\n
the property left behind by Thomas.   The   funeral expenses of   deceased<\/p>\n
Thomas was not met by the   9th  defendant alone   but was met by all the<\/p>\n
children   of   Thomas.     The   amount   shown   as   funeral   expenses   is   an<\/p>\n
exaggerated figure.  The value of the property shown in the schedule is not<\/p>\n
Rs. 25,000\/-.  The house alone will fetch a minimum of Rs. 2,00,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
will in question is a concocted one and is a product of  collusion.  The suit<\/p>\n
which is not maintainable in law may be dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n
       8.      The court below framed 5 issues for trial.   On the side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff three witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A4<\/p>\n
were marked.  On the side of the contesting  defendants,  2 witnesses were<\/p>\n
examined as DWs 1 and 2 and four documents were  marked as Exts. B1<\/p>\n
to B4.  Exts. X1 series were got summoned for the purpose of perusing  the<\/p>\n
admitted signatures of deceased Thomas.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.       The   learned   District   Judge,   after   trial,     as   per   judgment   and<\/p>\n
decree   dated   6-12-1993   repelled   the   defence   contentions   and   granted<\/p>\n
probate of Ext.A2 will   as prayed for.   It is the said judgment and decree<\/p>\n
which are assailed in this appeal by defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7.<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                   -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
       10.     Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.      The learned counsel appearing for the appellants  made the<\/p>\n
following submissions in support of the appeal:-<\/p>\n
        P.W.1 the plaintiff was a revenue inspector in the   Corporation of<\/p>\n
Cochin and he retired as a  superintendent.  Eventhough  P.W.1 and the 9th<\/p>\n
defendant   (examined as P.W.3)  would depose  that they are not friends,<\/p>\n
P.W.3   had   admitted   that   the   witnesses   to   Ext.A2     are   the   very   same<\/p>\n
persons who figured as witnesses to an earlier agreement for sale on the<\/p>\n
basis of which P.W.3 had filed a suit.   Similarly, it is the   niece of P.W.1<\/p>\n
who   was   admittedly the scribe of both Ext.A2 will as well as the earlier<\/p>\n
agreement for sale.  Neither P.W.1 nor his niece  is  professionally qualified<\/p>\n
to prepare documents of this nature.  But a reading of Ext.A2 will show that<\/p>\n
it is the product of professional draftsmanship.    While P.W.1    claimed to<\/p>\n
be a   family   friend of deceased Thomas, P.W.3 the sole   legatee   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A2  will has confessed that there was  absolutely no need  for his father<\/p>\n
to     collaborate   with   P.W.1.     P.W.1   has   admitted   that   there   was       no<\/p>\n
particular   reason     as   to   why   the   document   was   not   registered.     The<\/p>\n
following   are   the     suspicious   circumstances   which   militate   against   late<\/p>\n
Thomas executing the alleged will:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        a)  The signatures in Ext.A2 are not that of E.A. Thomas.<\/p>\n
        b)  Ext.A2 is an  unregistered instrument.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                         -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            c)  There was no need for Thomas to appoint an executor when there was
\n            only one item of property to be dealt with under the document.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            d)  In Ext.A2 the plaintiff who  is the executor himself  has signed  as  an
\n            attestor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            e)   The widow and all other children   (except    the 9th  defendant)  of the
\n            testator have been disinherited  under Ext.A2<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            f)  P.W.1 the plaintiff  has admitted that almost all the children of Thomas
\n            are jobless.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            g)  Ext.A2 contains details   of the devolution of title.  Such recitals could
\n            not  have been incorporated in Ext.A2 without  inspecting the anterior title
\n            deeds which were in the Mattanchery Sarvajenic Co-operative  Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            h)  P.W.1 has deposed that many of the information for the preparation of
\n            Ext.A2 were  supplied by the 9th defendant, the sole legatee and not by the
\n            testator.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            i)  On the date of Ext.A2   while two of the daughters of the testator were
\n            married, 6th defendant who was the youngest one  was unmarried.  Still no
\n            provision is made for her in Ext.A2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            j)   O.S. 8\/1984 was a suit filed by the 9th  defendant   legatee for specific
\n            performance  of  an  agreement  for   sale  executed   by    third  a  party   in his
\n            favour.   The attestors to that agreement are the   very same attestors to
\n            Ext.A2 as well.   Similarly, the scribe to that   agreement for sale   and the
\n            scribe of Ext.A2 is the very same person namely the niece of P.W.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            k)     Neither   P.W.1   nor   his   niece   are   document   writers   nor   are   they
\n            conversant with   the preparation of documents.   But a reading of Ext.A2
\n            will indicate that it is prepared by  a  professional document writer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            l) This is a case in which  the propounder of the will has taken  an active
\n            part in the preparation   of  the document  and he has figured as the  sole
\n            legatee to the exclusion of the widow  and the remaining eight children of
\n            E.A. Thomas.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The   circumstances   indicated     above   suggest   that   the<\/p>\n
propounder   has     created   sufficient   suspicion   in   the   mind   of   the   court<\/p>\n
necessitating him to satisfy the conscience  of the court.  Vide Smt. Sawant<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                      -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Others<\/a> – AIR 1977 SC 74.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        12.     I am afraid that I cannot   agree with the above  submissions.<\/p>\n
Among   the   widow  and   nine  children   of   Thomas   only  four  of   the   children<\/p>\n
have opposed the grant of probate.   All others including  the widow  have<\/p>\n
not   disputed   the   will.     Defendants   1,   4   and   10   even   filed   statements<\/p>\n
admitting the will and expressing their consent to the grant.  Except denying<\/p>\n
in   their     written   statement     the   execution   of   the   will   on   the   ground   of<\/p>\n
testamentary   capacity,   the   contesting   defendants   had   no   case   that   the<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.A2 is not that of late Thomas.   Their main contention  has<\/p>\n
been  that the will was   manufactured by the plaintiff who  is a close friend<\/p>\n
of the sole beneficiary  namely  the  9th defendant.<\/p>\n
        13.     The probate court is not a  court of probity and that court is not<\/p>\n
expected to ask whether the testator bequeathed   his property as the court<\/p>\n
thinks he ought to have done.   If the propounder proves   the bonafides of<\/p>\n
the transaction recorded in the testamentary instrument and there are no<\/p>\n
circumstances   suggesting   suspicion,   there   is   no   legal   impediment     in<\/p>\n
granting probate.  Questions as to whether the testator was a Mahomedan<\/p>\n
or a Christian or   his relationship with the parties   to the proceedings, his<\/p>\n
disposing   power   over   the   subject   matter   of   the   will   etc.   are   ordinarily<\/p>\n
irrelevant in probate proceedings.  (See Abdul Rashid v. Minnaul Hasan –<\/p>\n
AIR 1938 Nagpur 173).   It is not   the province of the probate court  in its<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                        -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
testamentary jurisdiction to go into  the questions of title.  (Vide Ishwerdeo<\/p>\n
Narain   Singh   v.   Smt.   Kamta   Devi   and   Others<\/a>   –     AIR   1954     SC   280,<\/p>\n
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka   v. Jasjit Singh and Others<\/a> – 1993 (2) SCC<\/p>\n
507,   Pappoo   v. Kuruvila – 1994 (2) KLT 278, Varghese v. Oommen –<\/p>\n
1994 (2) KLT 620,   Thomas P. Jacob v. Varghese<\/a> – 1987 (1) KLT 319,<\/p>\n
I.M. Madhavi  v. Sree  Ramavarma – 1969 KLT 806,  Ghulam Quadir  v.<\/p>\n
Special Tribunal and Others<\/a> – 2002 (1) SCC 33;  Kuruvila v. Sosamma<\/a><\/p>\n
2000 (2) KLT 399 and   C.P. Poulose & Others v. C.P. Paul & Others –<\/p>\n
1996 (1) KLJ 472).  The Probate Court  cannot also  enter into the question<\/p>\n
as   to   whether   the   testator’s   property   was   joint       or   separate.      (See<\/p>\n
Vithaldas Govindram Gandhi  v. Vadilal – AIR 1936 Bombay 191).  While<\/p>\n
considering a Muslim will, the probate court cannot go into the question as<\/p>\n
to   whether   the   bequests   under   the   will   are   valid   under   the   Muslim   law.<\/p>\n
(Dhanu  Ali Mia  v.   Sobhan  Ali  – AIR  1978   Calcutta 399).    The  probate<\/p>\n
gives   no   efficacy     to   the   provisions   of   the   will.       It   merely   proves     the<\/p>\n
contents of the will.   In other words,     the scope of enquiry of the probate<\/p>\n
court is to see   whether the  testator signed the will fully understanding  the<\/p>\n
dispositions thereunder and that the will was the last will  duly executed by<\/p>\n
a testator who had the requisite testamentary capacity.<\/p>\n
        14.       There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will<\/p>\n
(Ishwardeo     v.   Kamta<\/a>   –   AIR   1954   SC   280).    Even   a   registered   will   is<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                      -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
required to be proved like   any other will  (Karunabai v. Rameshoddas –<\/p>\n
AIR 1992 A.P. 270).      When the testamentary capacity of the testator is<\/p>\n
proved by the  evidence of competent  and disinterested  witnesses, the fact<\/p>\n
that the testator was in   such a state of health  which might have affected<\/p>\n
his memory is not sufficient   to discard the will  (Surya Narayan Murti   v.<\/p>\n
Saramma – 52     Calcutta Weekily Notes 35 (PC)  and  Venkatachala v.<\/p>\n
B.N. Thimma Jamma – AIR 1959 443).  While  in the case of an executor<\/p>\n
appointed under the will, he gets the authority to represent the estate from<\/p>\n
the will itself, in the case of an administrator he gets such authority under<\/p>\n
orders of the Court in a proceedings for the grant of letters of administration.<\/p>\n
(Kamalamma v. Somasekharappa – AIR  1963 Mysore 136). Probate can<\/p>\n
be granted   only to an executor   appointed under the will.   (See   Section<\/p>\n
222 of the Indian Succession Act).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        15.                 P.W.1 has proved due attestation of Ext.A2 will in the<\/p>\n
manner required by Sec. 63 of the Act.  Apart from the executor appointed<\/p>\n
under Ext.A2 will P.W.1 was also     one of   the attesting witnesses.   The<\/p>\n
other  attesting witness  to Ext.A2, as evidenced by Ext.A3 death certificate,<\/p>\n
had   died   before   the   trial   of   the   suit.     In   Ext.A2,   the   attesting   witnesses<\/p>\n
before affixing   their signatures as attesting witnesses have endorsed that<\/p>\n
they had seen the testator Thomas affixing his signatures in Ext.A2.  Giving<\/p>\n
allowance   to   the   natural   variations   in   the   signatures,   the   signatures   in<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                    -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.A2 bear striking  resemblance to his admitted signatures in Exts. A4 and<\/p>\n
X1 series.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The evidence in the case is to the effect that the 9th defendant<\/p>\n
who is  the eldest son of late Thomas had put up an automobile workshop<\/p>\n
of his own some time  in the year  1970-1971 at a time when  he was aged<\/p>\n
only 20 years.   It must be remembered that the family of Thomas was a<\/p>\n
large   family   with   11   members     all   living   in   the   same   house.     The   only<\/p>\n
avocation of late Thomas was a petty business in the form of a bunk shop<\/p>\n
put   up   in   front   of   his   house.     He   himself     was   a   kudikidappukaran.<\/p>\n
There was an old house in the property.                   As   evidenced   by   Ext.A4<\/p>\n
dated 7-10-1977 Thomas had put up the present construction in the place<\/p>\n
of the old house.   In Ext.A2   Thomas has mentioned that it was with the<\/p>\n
funds of the 9th  defendant legatee that he constructed the house.    There<\/p>\n
were boundary fence on three sides of the property which  has an extent of<\/p>\n
6  1\/4       cents.   To  replace  the  fence  with  brick  wall   late  Thomas  and  9th<\/p>\n
defendant had availed of a loan  from Mattancherry Sarvajenic Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank   by   deposit   of     title   deeds.     Ext.X1   series     evidence   the   above<\/p>\n
transaction.     9th  defendant examined as P.W.3 has deposed before court<\/p>\n
that it was he who had repaid   the above loan.   In Ext.A2 late Thomas has<\/p>\n
mentioned   about     the   above   loan   transaction   as   also     another     loan<\/p>\n
transaction.         Besides   the above loan, 9th  defendant  had   expended a<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                    -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
further amount of Rs. 3550\/- from his own   resources for the construction<\/p>\n
of   the   house.       Thomas   was   not   on   good   terms   with   the   3rd  defendant<\/p>\n
namely,  Sandhyavoo @ Kunhappan who had  married without his consent<\/p>\n
and had moved out of the family house.  When the 3rd defendant made an<\/p>\n
attempt to enter forcibly into the family house late Thomas had filed a suit<\/p>\n
for   injunction   against   him     as     O.S.   621\/84   before   the   Munsiff’s   Court,<\/p>\n
Cochin.  Exts.B1 and B2  evidence the above litigation.  In Ext.A2. Thomas<\/p>\n
has authorised the 9th defendant to prosecute the above suit further.<\/p>\n
        17.     When examined before Court P.W.1 has deposed that he was<\/p>\n
keeping custody of the original will since the children of Thomas would not<\/p>\n
obey   Thomas.         His   evidence   further   shows   that   his   acquaintance   with<\/p>\n
Thomas     started   from   1951   onwards.     P.W.1   was   employed   in   the<\/p>\n
Corporation   of   Cochin.     Two   of   the   brothers   of   late   Thomas   were   also<\/p>\n
employed in the Corporation of Cochin.   P.W.1’s evidence   further shows<\/p>\n
that he used to be consulted   for all matters concerning that family.   This<\/p>\n
shows that he was virtually a  family friend of  Thomas.  P.W.1  has  denied<\/p>\n
the suggestion put to him that he was a friend of the 9th defendant  legatee.<\/p>\n
        18.     With   regard   to   testamentary   capacity   of   late   Thomas   also<\/p>\n
there   is   enough   evidence   to   hold   that   he   was   hail   and   hearty   when   he<\/p>\n
executed   Ext.A2 will.   Merely   because he died of heart attack   one year<\/p>\n
after the execution of the will,   it cannot be   presumed that he was not in a<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                     -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
sound   disposing     state   of   mind   at   the   time   of   executing   the   will.     The<\/p>\n
evidence  of  P.w.1  goes  to  show that  late Thomas  and  his  youngest  son<\/p>\n
the 10th defendant  had come to   the  house  of P.W.1 and requested him to<\/p>\n
prepare a will and accordingly P.W1’s niece had prepared the will.  The 10th<\/p>\n
defendant has supported the grant.   The evidence of P.W.1 further shows<\/p>\n
that   Thomas   had   insisted     that   P.W.1   and   the   other   attesting     witness<\/p>\n
should figure as  the witnesses  to the will.  Even going by the testimony of<\/p>\n
the 5th defendant examined as DW2 it is clear that deceased Thomas was a<\/p>\n
strong willed character who was  firm and resolute in his deportment  and a<\/p>\n
man of determination.  To quote his own words in chief examination<\/p>\n
                                                           ”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                .\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ”\n<\/p>\n
That   is precisely what the father did by bequeathing   the plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property to his eldest son in whom he reposed complete confidence.   He<\/p>\n
was also  indebted to his eldest son Augustine.  D.W.2 confessed  that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was present for his marriage as one of the invitees. If so, P.W.1 was<\/p>\n
not a stranger to that family.   D.W.2 has also admitted that his father was<\/p>\n
not a person who blindly obeyed his eldest son.  This shows that his father<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                     -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
was a man of independent disposition.  This  also shows that late Thomas<\/p>\n
could   not     be   expected   to   be   a   puppet   in   the   hands   of   his   eldest   son<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the fact that he was greatly   indebted to the   eldest  son.<\/p>\n
Merely because the will in question is an unregistered will and that there is<\/p>\n
an uneven distribution of property under the will, that cannot be treated as a<\/p>\n
suspicious   circumstance.    (Vide     Sundaresa   Pai   .   Sumangala   T.   Pai   –<\/p>\n
2002 (1) KLT 32 SC).  In  Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu<\/p>\n
Vekhande and others<\/a> – AIR 2003 SC 3109  the apex court upheld the will<\/p>\n
in spite of  the fact that the entire property of the testator was given to his<\/p>\n
widow to the   exclusion of all his   daughters.   The non-examination of the<\/p>\n
scribe was also held to be of no consequence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        19.      The trial judge who  had the unique advantage of seeing the<\/p>\n
witnesses and assessing their credibility has chosen to believe  P.Ws 1 and<\/p>\n
3 in preference to D.Ws 1 and  2.   In the absence of any infirmity in the<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence by the trial  Court,  this Court also does   not<\/p>\n
find any ground to  differ from the conclusions reached by the court below.<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 is accordingly held to be the last will and   testament duly executed<\/p>\n
by late Thomas bequeathing the plaint  schedule  property in favour of his<\/p>\n
eldest     son   Augustine   and   that   the   said   Thomas   had   the   requisite<\/p>\n
testamentary capacity while executing the said will.<\/p>\n
        20.     Incidentally,       this   court   has   been   coming   across   various<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                       -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
procedural infirmities committed by the courts exercising testamentary  and<\/p>\n
intestate   jurisdiction.     An   application   for   probate   or   for     letters     of<\/p>\n
administration   is to be filed under Sec. 276 of the Act.   Probate is to be<\/p>\n
granted   only   if   an   executor   is  appointed   under   the   will.     Otherwise,     the<\/p>\n
request should be one for the grant   of letters of administration.   Section<\/p>\n
276 of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “276.  Petition  for probate – (1) Application for probate or
\n          for letters of administration, with the Will annexed, shall
\n          be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in
\n          the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the
\n          Court in which the application is made, with the Will or, in
\n          the   cases   mentioned   in   sections   237,   238   and   239,   a
\n          copy,   draft,   or   statement   of   the   contents   thereof,
\n          annexed, and stating –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      a)  the time of the testator’s death,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      b) that the writing annexed is his last Will and testament\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      c)  that it was duly executed\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      d)     the   amount   of   assets   which   are   likely   to
\n                      come to the petitioner’s hands, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      e)   when the application is for probate, that the
\n                      petitioner is the executor named in the  Will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2)        In   addition   to   these   particulars,   the   petition   shall   further
\n               state, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       a)   when   the application is   to the District   Judge,
\n                       that the deceased at the time of   his death had a
\n                       fixed place of abode, or had some property, situate
\n                       within the jurisdiction of the Judge, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       b)   when the application is to a District Delegate,
\n                       that the deceased at the time of his death had a
\n                       fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of such
\n                       Delegate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                           -:16:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                    (3)  Where the application is to  the District Judge and
\n        any   portion   of   the   assets   likely   to   come   to   the   petitioner’s
\n        hands   is   situate   in   another   State,   the   petition   shall   further
\n        state   the   amount   of   such   assets   in   each   State   and     the
\n        District   Judges   within   whose     jurisdiction   such   assets   are
\n        situate”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The     High   Court   of   Kerala   has   made   Rules       under   the   Indian<\/p>\n
Succession  Act.  The said Rules were published in the Kerala Gazette No.<\/p>\n
30 dated 28-7-1970 and are contained in Appendix  XII of the Civil rules of<\/p>\n
Practice   (Kerala).     As   per   Rule     6   of   the   said   Rules   an   application   for<\/p>\n
probate  should be in Form No. 2 which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                                            FORM NO. 2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                (Rule 6)<\/p>\n
        Application for probate<\/p>\n
        In the Court of ……………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Testamentary and Intestate jurisdiction<\/p>\n
        Petition for probate  of the will of ………Petitioner<\/p>\n
         SHEWETH<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             1.          That the above named ………………(a) died at ……………..
\n    on or about the ………………day of …………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2.        That the said   deceased at the time of his death left (b)
\n    property within the Town of ……………….. and in the State of Kerala.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3.        That   the   writing   hereunto   annexed   and
\n    marked ………………….. in his last Will and testament.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              4.        That   the   same   was   duly   executed   at   (c)   …………………
\n     the ……………day of ……………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                             -:17:-<\/span><\/p>\n
               5.        That the petitioner is the executor (d) named (e) the  said
\n    Will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.              That the petitioner has also truly set forth in the Schedule
\n    No.1   hereto   all   the   property   and   credits   which   the   deceased   died
\n    possessed of or entitled to at the time of his death which have  or likely
\n    to come to his hands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               7.             That the petitioner has also truly set forth in Schedule No.
\n    II (f) all the items that by law he is allowed to deduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               8.             That   the   said   assets     exclusive   of   what   the   deceased
\n     may have been possessed   of   or entitled to as a trustee for another
\n     and not beneficially or with power to confer a beneficial interest and
\n     also exclusive of the items mentioned in the said Schedule No. II, but
\n     inclusive of all rents, interest and dividends and increased value since
\n     the date of his death are under the value of Rupees …………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               9.  That the said deceased left him surviving as his only next-of-
\n     kin according to (g) …………..law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 10.           That no application has been made to any District Court\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (h)    or  to  any  other  High Court  for probate  of   any  Will of the  said
\n       deceased or letters of administration with or without the Will annexed
\n       to his property and credits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The   petitioner   prays   that   probate   may   be   granted   to   him
\n       having                    effect             ………………………………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (i)……………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        I,   ………………………………………..the   petitioner……………………………
\n        above   named   to   solemnly   declare   that   what   is   stated   in
\n        paragraphs     …………….is   true   to   my   knowledge   and     that   what   is
\n        stated   in   the   remaining   paragraphs   is   true   to   the   best   of   my
\n        information and belief and I belief the same to be true.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Date:                                                              Signature of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                     -:18:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 280 of the Act inter alia  says that the  petition for probate shall  be<\/p>\n
subscribed by the petitioner and his pleader and shall also be verified by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the manner indicated therein.  Section 281 of the Act gives<\/p>\n
the form in which the petition for probate   is to be verified by at least one<\/p>\n
witness.  Section 275 of the Act  declares  that an application for probate   if<\/p>\n
made     and   verified   in     the   manner   provided   under   the   Act   shall   be<\/p>\n
conclusive for the purpose of authorizing the grant of probate and the said<\/p>\n
section     further   states   that   no   grant   of   probate   shall   be   impeached     by<\/p>\n
reason only that the  testator had no  fixed place of abode or  no property<\/p>\n
within the district at the time of his death.  Section 268 of the Act provides<\/p>\n
that   proceedings   before     the   District   Judge   shall,     by   and   large,     be<\/p>\n
regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.  Section 283 of the Act reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “Powers of District Judge – (1)   In all cases the District Judge or
\n            District Delegate may, if he thinks proper, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   a) examine the petitioner in person, upon oath;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   b)  require further evidence of the due execution of the Will or
\n                   the right of the petitioner to the letters of administration, as
\n                   the case may be;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   c)   issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have
\n                   any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see
\n                   the   proceedings   before   the   grant   of   probate   or   letters   of
\n                   administration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)     The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                                -:19:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          the court-house, and also the office of the Collector of the  district
\n          and  otherwise published or made known in  such manner  as the
\n          Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3)           Where any portion of  the assets has been  stated  by  the
\n          petitioner to be situate within the jurisdiction of a District Judge in
\n          another State, the District Judge issuing the same shall cause a
\n          copy of the citation to be sent to such other District Judge, who
\n          shall publish the same in the same manner as if it were a citation
\n          issued by himself, and shall certify such publication to the District
\n          Judge who issued the citation”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus, by virtue of clause (c)  of sub-section (1)  of Sec. 283, citations  are to<\/p>\n
be  issued to all   persons claiming to have an interest in the estate of the<\/p>\n
deceased.  The form of   such citations is prescribed  under Form No. 5 of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Rules as shown  below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                “Form No. 5<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 (Rule 17)
\n                            Notice of Citation for Personal Service<\/p>\n
                            In the Court of ……………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Testamentary   and   Intestate   Jurisdiction………………………………………
\n       Petition for …………………………deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                       Petitioner’s
\n       To
\n       …………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Take   notice   that   the   above   petition   for   the   grant
\n       of …………………….shall be heard on the ………………………………. day
\n       of …………………………19……………..at. ………………….You may appear
\n       on            the          date          of          hearing          to         show         cause
\n       why……………………………..should not be granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       And   also   take   notice,   that   in   default   of   your   so   appearing   and<\/p>\n
       showing   cause,   the   Court   will   proceed   to   grant   …………………your<\/p>\n
       absence notwithstanding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                      -:20:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Dated this …………………….day of ………..19……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            Signature………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            Desisgnation…………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Any person who has received citations and who is desirous of objecting to<\/p>\n
the grant of probate has to enter a caveat  with the District Judge in view of<\/p>\n
Sec. 284 of the Act which reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “284.     Caveats   against   grant   of   probate   or   administration.   —(1)
\n        Caveats   against   the   grant   of   probate   or   administration   may   be
\n        lodged with  a District Judge or a District Delegate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2)     Immediately   on   any   caveat   being   lodged   with   any   District
\n        Delegate,. he shall send copy  thereof to the District Judge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3)  Immediately on a caveat being entered with the District Judge,
\n        a copy  thereof shall be given to the District Delegate , if any, within
\n        whose   jurisdiction   it   is   alleged   the   deceased   had   fixed   place   of
\n        abode at the time of his death, and to any other Judge or District
\n        Delegate to whom it may appear to the District Judge expedient to
\n        transmit the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (4)     Form   of   caveat   –   The   caveat   shall   be   made   as   nearly   as
\n        circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Schedule  V of the Act prescribes  the From of  Caveat to be lodged<\/p>\n
by a person opposing the grant.  The said Form Reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      “SCHEDULE V<\/p>\n
                                  (See Section 284(4)<\/p>\n
                                   FORM OF CAVEAT<\/p>\n
               Let anything be done in the matter of the estate of A. B., late<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                        -:21:-<\/span><\/p>\n
         of   …………………….   deceased,   who   died   on   the   day   of   …………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         at………………without notice to C.D. of ………………………….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        Section   285     of   the   Act   says   that   after   the   entry   of   caveat   no<\/p>\n
proceedings should be taken on the  petition  without notice to the Caveator.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.22   of   the   Kerala     Rules   is   also   to   the   same   effect   and   Form   No.   8<\/p>\n
appended to the Rules is the   form of notice   of caveat prescribed by the<\/p>\n
Rules.  The procedure in contentious cases is indicated in Sec. 295 of the<\/p>\n
Act which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          “295.   Procedure in contentious cases . – In any case before
\n          the   District   Judge   in   which   there   is   contention,   the
\n          proceedings   shall  take,  as  nearly   as  may  be,   the  form  of  a
\n          regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil
\n          Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in which the petitioner for probate
\n          or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the
\n          plaintiff,   and   the   person   who   has   appeared   to   oppose   the
\n          grant shall be defendant”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R. 26 of the Kerala Rules is the  corresponding Rule which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
         Conversion   of   application       into   suit   –   Upon   the   affidavit   in
\n         support   of   the   caveat   being   filed,   notice     whereof   shall
\n         simultaneously be given by the caveator or to the petitioner.
\n         The   proceedings   shall   be   ordered   by   the   Court   to   be
\n         numbered   as   a   suit   in   which   the   petitioner   for   probate   or
\n         Letters of Administration shall be the plaintiff and the caveator
\n         shall be the defendant, the petition for probate or Letters of
\n         Administration    being  registered  as  and  deemed  as  a plaint
\n         filed   against   the   caveator,   and   the   affidavit   filed   by   the
\n         caveator   being   treated   as   his   written   statement   in   the   suit.
\n         The procedure in such suit  shall,  as nearly as may  be,   be
\n         according to the provisions of the Code”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus,   after   the   conversion   of   the   original   petition   into   a   regular   suit   the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/petitioners who filed the probate O.P. will stand relegated to the<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                   -:22:-<\/span><\/p>\n
position   of   plaintiff   and   the   caveators   who   oppose   the   grant   will   stand<\/p>\n
relegated to the position  of defendants in the regular suit. In Mrs. Kamala<\/p>\n
Bai Nelson v. Vedraj – ILR 1981 (2) Kerala 1, it has been  hold that even a<\/p>\n
person who has not filed a caveat may later appear and object to the grant<\/p>\n
of   probate   or   letters   of   administration   and   make   the   proceedings<\/p>\n
contentious.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        21.      In the present case instead of issuing citations what the court<\/p>\n
below did was to issue notice.   Similarly, consequent on the contest by four<\/p>\n
out of the ten respondents those four  respondents alone should have been<\/p>\n
shown as the defendants to the suit.   Instead ,   all the respondents to the<\/p>\n
probate  O.P. were  arrayed as the defendants in the suit.<\/p>\n
        22.     Instances are not infrequent   when the relevant provisions of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (“Kerala Court Fees<\/p>\n
Act)” for short are not adhered to while entertaining and converting such<\/p>\n
original petitions.  The relevant provisions of the   Kerala Court Fees Act are<\/p>\n
extracted hereinbelow for the sake of District Courts   and District Delegates<\/p>\n
dealing with such original petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\n“If the L.A. O.P.   or Probate O.P. is uncontested.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           1.  Petition Fee  Rs. 25\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                   -              (See Schedule  II Article 11 (k) (ii) (2) of\n\n                                                                   Kerala Court Fees  Act)\n\n           2. Court Fee :                          1% of the total valuation upto rupees 10\n\n\nA.S. 370\/94                                               -:23:-<\/span>\n\n\n                                                                 million - (See sections 55 and 56 and\n\n                                                               Schedule 1 Article 6(1) of Kerala\n\n                                                               Court  Fees Act.\n\n                  If the L.A. O.P.  or probate O.P. is contested\n\n<\/pre>\n
                         By virtue of Rule 26 of the Indian   Succession Rules (Kerala) 1968,<\/p>\n
                 the O.P. is to be deemed to be a suit.\n<\/p>\n
                 1)  Petition Fee: Rs. 5\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                            – (See Schedule II Article 11 (k) (ii) (2) of Kerala Court<\/p>\n
                 Fees Act )<\/p>\n
                 2) Court Fee                      :     One half of the scale of fee prescribed under<\/p>\n
                   Schedule I    Article 1 on the market value,  less the fee already paid on the<\/p>\n
                                                                                          original petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                          – (See proviso to Schedule II Article 11 (k) (ii) (2) of the Kerala<\/p>\n
                                                                                         Court Fees Act).\n<\/p>\n
In Pappoo v. Kuruvila – 1982 KLT 255 it has been held that the proviso to  Article 11<\/p>\n
(k)  of Schedule  II of the Kerala  Court  Fees  Act applies  to both  clauses  (i)  and  (ii)<\/p>\n
thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Rate of court fees under<\/p>\n
                 Schedule I  Article 1 of the Kerala Court Fees Act<\/p>\n
First Rs. 100\/-……………………………Rs.4\/-<\/p>\n
Next Rs. 100\/- upto Rs. 15,000\/-…….Rs.4\/- for every Rs.100\/- exceeding Rs. 2100\/-<\/p>\n
From Rs.15,000\/- to Rs. 50,000\/-……Rs. 8\/- for every Rs. 100\/-exceeding Rs. 15,000\/-<\/p>\n
From   Rs.   50,000\/-   to   Rs.   10   lakhs……Rs.   10\/-     for   every   Rs.  100\/-  exceeding   Rs.
\n50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\nIf the valuation in a suit is Rs. 100000\/- then the C .F. for the  suit will be Rs. 8,400\/-<\/p>\n
            One half  of it would be Rs. 4,200\/-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            22.  In              Kurian v. Ayyappan – 1982 KLT  434 F.B:  it has been<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94                                     -:24:-<\/span><\/p>\n
held that   since an appeal can arise only in a contentious proceeding, the<\/p>\n
fee prescribed under Schedule I  Article 4 for an appeal is the  fee payable<\/p>\n
for   a   contentious     original   proceeding   as   provided   under   the   proviso   to<\/p>\n
schedule II Article 11 (k) (ii).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         23.    Thus, after bestowing my anxious consideration  to the entire<\/p>\n
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   I   do   not   find   any   good     ground   to<\/p>\n
interfere with the conclusions reached by the trial judge.<\/p>\n
          In the result, this Appeal is dismissed.   However, having regard to<\/p>\n
the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   parties   shall   bear   their<\/p>\n
respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   V. RAMKUMAR,
\n                                                                        (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ani.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.S. 370\/94    -:25:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n                         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
\n                              A.S. NO. 370 OF 1994
\n                         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
\n                                Dated, this the 19th
\n                             day of  October   2006<\/p>\n
                                           JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.S. 370\/94    -:26:-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 370 of 1994(A) 1. ELSY … Petitioner Vs 1. V.K.RAJU … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN For Respondent :SRI.S.K.BRAHAMANANDAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :20\/10\/2006 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nElsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\",\"name\":\"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006","datePublished":"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006"},"wordCount":5863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006","name":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T15:03:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elsy-vs-v-k-raju-on-20-october-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}