{"id":31729,"date":"2011-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-13T23:12:03","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T17:42:03","slug":"k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11093 of 2008\nand\nS.A.No.182 of 2005 and\nconnected Miscellaneous Petitions\n\nW.P.No.11093 of 2008\n\nK.G.K.Ganesamoorthy     ... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Joint Director of School\n   Education,\n  Elementary Education, Chennai.\n2.The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer, Tirunelveli District.\n  Tirunelveli.\n3.The Assistant Elementary Educational\n   Officer, Tirunelveli.\n4.K.G.Sankaranarayanan  ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
  (R4 impleaded as per order dated
\n   10.12.2008 in M.P.No.2\/08 in
\n   W.P.No.11093\/2008)<\/p>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
\nrelating to the impugned order of the second respondent made in
\nNa.Ka.No.7013\/A2\/2008, dated 20.11.2008 and quash the same and consequently
\ndirect the respondents to change the educational agency of the Ganeshamoorthy
\nMiddle School in the name of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner … Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
\n^For Respondents… Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
\n\t\t    (Govt.Advocate)  (R1 to R3)
\n                     M\/s T.Jeen Joseph
\n                     S.Sivakumar (R4)<\/p>\n
S.A.No.182 of 2005\n<\/p>\n
1.R.Krishnammal\n<\/p>\n
2.K.G.Kothai Nayagi\n<\/p>\n
3.K.G.Balamaheswari\n<\/p>\n
4.K.G.Suriya Kala\n<\/p>\n
5.K.G.Kajagowri   …Appellants<\/p>\n
v.\n<\/p>\n
1.K.G.Kantha Kumar (Died)\n<\/p>\n
2.K.G.Sivasankara Narayanan\n<\/p>\n
3.K.G.Alagarammal\n<\/p>\n
4.District Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Tirunelveli -2.\n<\/p>\n
5.Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Palay Nagar, Palayamkottai -2
\n  Now at Perumalpuram.\n<\/p>\n
6.Joint Director,
\n  Directorate of Elementary Education
\n   of Tamilnadu, Chennai -6.\n<\/p>\n
7.State of Tamil Nadu,
\n  Through its District Collector,
\n  Tirunelveli -9.\n<\/p>\n
8.Selva Rani\n<\/p>\n
9.Subbalakshmi\n<\/p>\n
10.Ganesamoorthy\n<\/p>\n
11.Raja Gothainayagi\n<\/p>\n
12.Jeya Durga\n<\/p>\n
13.Vijaya Durga   …Respondents
\n(Respondents 8 to 13 brought on record
\nas LRs of the deceased R1 vide court
\norder dated 12.06.2007 in M.P.No.1\/2009<\/p>\n
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the
\njudgment and decree in A.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of the first Additional
\nDistrict Judge, Tirunveli dated 08.12.2004 reversing the judgment and decree in
\nO.S.No.177 of 1998 on the file of the second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli
\ndated 25.03.2004.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant
\nin Second Appeal \t…  M\/s.Sarvabhauman
\n\t\t\t     Associates
\n^For Respondents  \t…  Mr.T.R.Rajagopal,S.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     For Ms.N.Krishnaveni for R2
\n                        … Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,G.A.\n<\/p>\n
                                     (R4 to R7)
\n                        … Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
\n                                     (R8 to R13)<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n      Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The Writ Petition and Second Appeal were grouped together on being
\nspecially ordered by the Administrative Judge and posted before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The writ petition was filed by K.G.K.Ganesa Moorthy, 10th respondent in
\nthe Second Appeal and the  son of the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.177
\nof 1998.  The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the District
\nElementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 20.11.2008, wherein and by
\nwhich, it was informed that the writ petitioner and K.G.Sankaranarayanan, who is
\nthe impleaded 4th respondent were directed to submit certain documents for
\nhaving the right of  management over the Ganesamoorthy Middle School, Kurichi,
\nPalayamkottai Circle.\n<\/p>\n
      4. It was found that Ganesa Moorthy Pillai, the former Manager had left a
\nWill dated 17.02.1995, in which he had made his son K.G.Kanthakumar to be the
\nowner of the school.  In a subsequent Will, dated 28.02.1995, he had stated that
\nboth movable and immovable properties will go to his two male heirs in equal
\nparts.  On 19.10.1996, a document was registered at Parasalai, (which is a
\nsettlement) by which it was found that the school building will be enjoyed
\nabsolutely by Kanthakumar. Since in the second Will dated 28.02.1995, it was
\nstated that both the movable and immovable properties were to be inherited by
\nboth the sons in equal shares, without any order of the Civil Court, the right
\nof the Management of the School cannot be considered by the Department and both
\nthe legal heirs were directed to approach the appropriate Civil Court for
\ngetting appropriate relief. Challenging the said order, the writ petition came
\nto be filed.\n<\/p>\n
      5. After filing of the writ petition, an application was taken out to
\nimplead K.G.Sankaranarayanan as fourth respondent and was impleaded by an order
\ndated 10.12.2008.  Private notices were ordered to the fourth respondent on
\n05.01.2009 and he is represented by counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The second respondent, District Elementary Educational Officer had
\nfiled a counter affidavit dated Nil (2009). Even while the writ petition was
\npending, parties were locked up in a civil litigation before the 2nd Additional
\nSub-Court Tirunelveli in O.S.No.177 of 1998, which was decreed on 25.03.2004 and
\nagainst which an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court in A.S.No.77 of
\n2004. The appeal was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004 and the
\norder of the Trial Court was set aside.  It was against the said judgment and
\ndecree, the original plaintiffs preferred the Second appeal in S.A.No.182 of
\n2005.  Both sides agreed that the disposal of the Second Appeal will decide the
\ndestiny of the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The facts leading to the Second Appeal are as follows:-
\n      Late K.Ganesamoorthy was the Manager as well as the owner of the
\nGanesamoorthy Middle School in Kurichi in Palayamkottai circle. In 1995, he
\ntransferred the management of the school in favour of K.G.Kanthakumar. He also
\nexecuted two Wills, one dated 17.02.1995 and the other Will dated 28.02.1995.
\nSubsequently, he executed a Registered Settlement Deed on 19.10.1996, settling
\nthe school buildings in favour of Kanthakumar. As per the first Will dated
\n17.02.1995, he bequeathed the right of Management of the school and a part of
\nthe school building in favour of Kanthakumar, his first son. He also provided a
\ndwelling house and a part of the building of the school to his second son
\nSankaraNarayanan. By the second Will dated 28.02.1995, he bequeathed all his
\nproperties including the school, both movable and immovable in favour of his two
\nsons M\/s.K.G.Kanthakumar and K.G.Sankaranarayanan in equal moiety.  Thereafter,
\nhe executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 19.10.1996 settling the school
\nbuildings in favour of his son Kanthakumar. In the Wills, he did not provide
\nanything either to his wife or to his female children. Late Ganesamoorthy had
\ntwo wives. His first wife pre-deceased him and through her, he had two sons
\nM\/s.K.G.Kanthakumar and K.G.Sankaranarayanan and a daughter by name
\nK.G.Alagarammal. He married one R.Krishanammal, as his second wife after the
\npassing away of his first wife and through her, he had four daughters
\nM\/s.Kothainayagi, Balamaheswari, Suriya Kala and Gajagowri. On the death of late
\nGanesamoorthy, his second wife and children filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 1998
\non the file of Second Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, seeking  a declaration
\nand permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties and also claiming
\n21\/40 shares in the second schedule of the property.  In the suit, the
\ndefendants were the children of the first wife i.e. K.G.Kanthakumar and
\nK.G.Sivasankaranarayanan and Alagarammal.\n<\/p>\n
      8. In the suit O.S.No.177 of 1998, 11 documents were filed by the
\nplaintiffs and they were marked Exs.A1 to A11. On the side of the defendants, 26
\ndocuments were filed and marked as Exs.B1 to B26.  On behalf of the plaintiffs,
\nhis first wife Krishnammal was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses
\nM\/s.Balagurusamy and Muthukumarasamy were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3.  On the
\nside of the defendants, the first defendant, Kanthakumar examined himself as
\nD.W.1. Apart from that, four other witnesses M\/s. Abdul Ajeez, Balamurugan,
\nBeermohammed and Pandian were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The Trial Court framed the following 8 issues:\n<\/p>\n
       i)Whether the first schedule property is a joint family property?\n<\/p>\n
       ii)Whether the Will dated 28.02.1995 executed by  late Ganesamoorthy was
\nlegally valid?\n<\/p>\n
       iii)Whether in respect of the first schedule property, the plaintiffs as
\nwell as defendants 1 to 3 are the agency of the said property?\n<\/p>\n
      iv) Whether it is correct that defendants 1 to 3 alone are the agencies of
\nthe first scheduled property?\n<\/p>\n
      v)whether the defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs are entitled to have a
\nright to have rotational management over the school?.\n<\/p>\n
      vi)In respect of the second schedule property, whether the plaintiffs are
\nentitled to get 21\/40 shares?.\n<\/p>\n
      vii) In respect of the first schedule property, whether it is correct to
\nstate that 4 and 5th defendants were responsible  for mismanagement?\n<\/p>\n
      viii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?\n<\/p>\n
      10. The Trial Court found that the school was started by one  Kandasamy
\nPillai. There was no proof that he in his personal earnings started the school
\nand since defendants K.G.Kanthakumar and K.G.Sankararanarayanan were born to
\nGanesamoorthy, the first schedule property  should be considered as a joint
\nfamily property. Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the legal effect of the
\nWill dated 28.02.1995, marked as Ex.B1. The Trial Court found that late
\nGanesamoorthy executed the first Will and thereafter, without reference to that
\nWill, he executed a second Will and within a short period, the necessity to
\nwrite the second Will was not explained. In the Will dated 28.02.1995, there was
\nno reference to the Management of the School and it was claimed that after
\n17.05.1995, since K.G.Kanthakumar, was the School Secretary and Manager as per
\nEx.B6, the necessity to create subsequent document was not explained. It was
\nfound that Ganesamoorthy’s physical condition was impaired and he was undergoing
\nmedical treatment. Subsequently, as per Ex.B21, he created a Settlement Deed
\nregistered at Parasalai (Kerala State). Even though there was a reference to
\nthird item in the schedule,  it was not visited by any one of them and
\ntherefore, the first plaintiff cannot have any right over the property in Door
\nNo.44 and Door No.43A.  It also found that Ex.B21 was void document and in
\nrespect of Ex.B3 and Ex.B1, the first defendant in order to deny the right of
\nothers had utilised his relationship with late Ganesamoorthy and created those
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
      11. There was also difference in the signatures of P.W.3, Muthukumarsamy
\nand D.W.2, Abdul Ajeez in the Will dated 28.02.1995. Even assuming that the
\nSettlement Deed in Ex.B21 is accepted as true wherein it was stated that two
\nsons alone are entitled for share, it creates a doubt on the existence of Ex.B1
\nWill dated 28.02.1995 since it was found that Ganesamoorthy’s physical and
\nmental condition were not proper, those documents were created and hence in
\norder to deny the right of plaintiffs, the defendants have made use of
\nGanesamoorthy and when his mental condition was not good, these documents were
\ncreated and therefore, Ex.B1 is not  legally valid.  With reference to the
\nsecond schedule property, the finding was that it was a joint family property
\nand since it is an ancestral property, the plaintiffs are entitled for 21\/40
\nshares.  In respect of the second schedule, first and second items are
\nconcerned, 5\/8 shares will go to the plaintiffs.  With reference to the 5th
\nissue relating to the Management of the School, it found that the plaintiffs are
\nalso entitled for a share in the Management of the school and therefore, the
\nManagement must be done on a rotational basis. For the first two years, the
\nplaintiffs will manage the school and thereafter, for the subsequent two years,
\nthe defendants will manage the school and the official respondents must
\nimplement the rotational management.\n<\/p>\n
      12. As against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2004, the defendants
\nfiled an appeal in A.S.No.77 of 2004 and the matter was tried by the I
\nAdditional District Judge,  Tirunelveli.  The Appellate Court held that for the
\nperiod from 1980 to 1996, Ganesamoorthy’s Physical and mental condition was
\nproper and therefore, both the Wills were written by him. At the time writing of
\nthe Wills he was in good mental and condition.  The settlement deed in Ex.B21
\nwas legally valid. The Lower Appellate Court also held that in a proper mental
\nand physical condition late Ganesamoorthy left the properties to be shared
\nbetween the two male sons and he had not provided any share for the daughter or
\nfor his wife.  The Settlement Deed came into force after the two Wills came into
\nexistence and Ganesamaoorthy was holding several posts and he had also
\nparticipated in the marriage of the plaintiffs and the defendants.  He was
\nworking in the Civil Supplies Department and thereafter, as Headmaster and
\nCorrespondent of the School. He had his own income and Ganesamoorthy had every
\nright to create encumbrance in the property.  Ganesamoorthy transferred the
\nManagement of the school to his first son. The amounts for the marriage written
\nin Ex.B19 and photo as well as negatives of the marriage conducted for
\nK.G.Sivasankaranarayan showed Ganesamoorthy in good condition.  The judgment of
\nthe Trial Court was not legal and therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court was
\nwas set aside by a judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n
      13. In the second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs, it was
\ncontended that the order of the lower appellate Court was not valid. Late
\nGanesamoorthy had no right to bequeath the entire school property in favour of
\nhis first son. Exs.B1 and B3 were not proved and the Ganesamoorthy was not in
\nsound mental condition and the evidence of P.W.2 was not appreciated by the
\nlower appellate Court regarding the mental condition of Ganesamoorthy. It was
\nalso proved that  Ganesamoorthy was taking treatment from 1993 to 1996 which was
\nadmitted by the first defendant and during which period Exs.A10, A11 and Ex.B2
\ncame into existence. Since in the second Will, there was no reference to the
\nprevious Will and there was no reference about the school management, EX.B21
\nSettlement Deed registered at Parasalai was not valid. Since P.W.3 had not seen
\nlate Ganesamoorthy affixing the signature and also spoken about the state of
\nmind, the Will cannot be relied upon. Since no property were allotted to the
\nheirs of the second wife, the will was invalid.\n<\/p>\n
      14. The question of law framed by this Court at the time of admission on
\n01.03.2005 was whether the first appellate Court was justified in not discussing
\nall the issues which were discussed by the Trial Court?\n<\/p>\n
      15. Mr.Gnanagurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
\nsubmitted that Ganesamoorthy’s first son K.G.Kanthakumar was working as Middle
\nSchool teacher and was also helping his father to run the school and therefore,
\nhe alone will run the school. He also referred to his second son
\nK.G.Sankaranarayanan, who was already employed in higher secondary school and
\ngave the second schedule property to him. In the second Will dated 28.02.1995 he
\nhad very clearly stated that one son and other daughter had already died and
\nthat he had made arrangement for getting married the daughters of his second
\nwife. He had earned the entire property on his own personal income as he was
\nworking as Firka Supply Officer and later worked as Headmaster of the School.
\nWith reference to the marriage of Gajagowri, he made his two sons to be
\nresponsible to get her married and the second wife will stay with the children
\nof the first wife for her life time and in case she does not want to live them,
\nand she is also entitled to live in House No.43 and get the family pension. The
\nlearned counsel after taking this Court to various evidences also placed
\nreliance upon certain judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in support
\nof his contentions.\n<\/p>\n
  16.1. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court
\nin Sadachi Ammal v. Rajathi Ammal (A.I.R.1940 Madras<\/a> 315) for the purpose of
\ncontending that the registration is not a proof of testamentary capacity and the
\nWill will have to be proved before the Court. While proving the execution of the
\nWill, the testator’s capacity and mind also will be a relevant factor.\n<\/p>\n
      16.2. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
\nin H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others (A.I.R.1959 SC<\/a> 443) for
\nthe purpose of contending that the proof of the signature of the deceased will
\nshow that he is presumed to have known the provisions of the instrument he had
\nsigned. But the said presumption is liable to be rebutted by proof of suspicious
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      16.3. Thereafter, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in Rani Purnima Debi and another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and
\nanother (AIR 1962 SC 567), wherein the Court found that the propounder of the
\nWill getting sole benefit subject to the maintenance of the testator’s wife and
\nsister and he himself taking part in the execution of the Will and with the
\nsignature of the testator not appearing to be his usual signature through
\nsuspicion and in such circumstances, the fact of registration cannot be a
\nsufficient proof.  It is for the propounder to dispel  the suspicious
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      16.4. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
\nS.Ramamurthy v. Jayalakshmi<\/a> ammal (1991-1.L.W. 391) wherein, this Court held
\nthat execution of a document is not mere signing of it.\n<\/p>\n
      16.5. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of
\nthis Court in Dharman and six others v. Marimuthu (1996 (II) CTC 279), wherein
\nthis Court held that in undue influence and unnatural and unconscionable
\ndisposition of the entire properties  by gift to person having dominating
\nposition the initial burden is discharged by proving dominating position. The
\nCourt can also go into the health condition of the donor and total exclusion of
\ndaughters and minor children of the donor without mentioning any reason or
\nmisunderstanding can be held to be a suspicious circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      16.6. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of this
\nCourt in T.Kanniah Rao v. Inder Rao<\/a> (1996 (II) CTC 466) to the effect that onus
\nof proof is on the propounder to explain the suspicious circumstances by
\nadducing unimpeachable evidence regarding genuineness and authenticity of Will.\n<\/p>\n
      16.7. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon a judgment of this
\nCourt in Rajammal and others v. Ramasami and others<\/a> (1998 (I) CTC 98), wherein
\nthis Court held that the burden of proof is open to the propounder of the Will
\nto prove the doubts in execution of the Will. For the very same purpose, the
\njudgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Kaur and Others v. Kartar Kaur and
\nothers<\/a> (1998) 4 SCC 384 was relied upon and in that case, it was found if some
\nof the natural heirs are disinherited in the Will without any reason, the
\ngenuineness can be doubted.\n<\/p>\n
      16.8. The learned counsel further relied upon judgment of this Court in
\nSivasamy and others v. Poomalai and others<\/a> (2008 (5) CTC 294) once again for the
\nvery same purpose for contending that it is for the propounder of the Will to
\nremove grounds of suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
      16.9. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the
\nSupreme Court in K.Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others<\/a> (2009) 4 MLJ 681
\n(SC)  and Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh<\/a> (2009) 5 MLJ 1605 (SC-NOC)
\nto reiterate the same contentions.\n<\/p>\n
      16.10. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in P.R.Vijayarangam
\nv. P.R.Ramanujam<\/a> (2009 (3) CTC 503) to contend that if the testator had a
\nfalling health profile and the propounder playing predominant role will
\ncontribute serious doubts about the execution of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      16.11. Lastly, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
\nPremavathi and others v. Sundararajan and others<\/a> (2009 (3) CTC 801) for
\ncontending that propounder should remove all suspicious circumstances and must
\nprove the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      17. Therefore, he contended that executing two wills within a short time
\nand excluding the heirs of the second wife from any inheritance and registering
\na Settlement in a far away place in Kerala as well as the medical evidence
\nproduced will show he was under treatment and that the late Ganesamoorthy never
\nhad a disposing state of mind.  He also contended that the Trial Court had
\nappreciated all the evidence and found the documents in Exs.B1 and B3  were not
\nvalid and Ex.B21 was unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
      18. Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel after taking this Court to
\nthe evidence adduced before the Trial Court contended that the Doctor who was
\nexamined as P.W.2., Balagurusamy in his cross examination had stated that
\nGanesamoorthy came to him during 1993 and thereafter in 1996. He was not aware
\nof the post held by him during the said period. He could not deny that he was
\nreceiving pension and was not aware of his signature. During the relevant
\nperiod, he was instrumental in performing marriage for one son and one daughter
\nand was receiving guests during the marriage ceremony as could be seen from the
\nvideo  picture.  Even in his chief examination, he had stated that on
\n01.01.1993, 02.10.1993 and 23.11.1993, he was only taking treatment as an
\noutpatient and even in October 1996 he was only treated as out patient.
\nTherefore, mental state of mind of a person cannot be proved by this scanty
\nevidence of P.W.1 who was only working as part time in the hospital and who had
\nseen him occasionally and also did not produce any medical records about the
\ntreatment.\n<\/p>\n
      19. On the other hand, during the relevant period, the late Ganesamoorthy
\nwas in good physical condition and was also holding the post of School
\nCorrespondent.  The fact he chose the first son to run the school was that he
\nwas already a teacher in the School and was helping him in the Management of the
\nschool. It is not as if he did not take care of the other children. In the
\nsecond Will, he had made a description of all the other children, which will
\nclearly show his disposition of mind.  The Will was proved in the manner known
\nto law which fact was found accepted by the lower appellate court.  He also
\nsubmitted that Ex.B5 was a legal notice sent by plaintiffs 4 and 5.  Thereafter,
\nthe said Ganesamoorthy had functioned in the school and the other documents like
\nsending form for Urban land tax Ex.B11. Ex.B13 series were 7 post cards written
\nby Ganesamoorthy in his own handwriting. The only book maintained by
\nGanesamoorthy is Ex.B18 and the marriage account for the second plaintiff in
\nEx.B19 clearly showed that he was having a good physical state of mind. The
\nphotos and negatives found in Ex.B20 series will show that Ganesamoorthy was
\nreceiving guests in the marriage function.  These facts were simply ignored by
\nthe Trial Court but were found to be valid documents in assessing the mental and
\nphysical health of Ganesamoorthy and further it is not as if the lower appellate
\ncourt did not appreciate the evidence on record.  On the other hand, it did not
\ndiscuss all the material facts and came to the conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
      20. In the second appeal, only when there was a question of law involved
\nthe findings recorded by the lower appellate court can be interfered with.
\nEvidence recorded clearly shows that Exs.B1 and B3 as well as Ex.B21 cannot be
\nheld to be invalid documents or mutually contradictory documents. Since
\nGanesamoorthy’s first son was already in the school and helping his father to
\nmanage the school, it is natural that the father had given an opportunity to him
\nto continue the administration of the school. His second son was already
\nemployed in some other school and therefore he gave exclusive right to his first
\nson. In the second Will, he had also mentioned about the other daughters of his
\nsecond wife as well as the children of his first wife and made reference to each
\none of them and  expressed clearly that he had not provided anything for them.
\nTherefore, it is not as if the testator was not aware of the other children or
\ntheir standing in the Society.  Even about his own second wife, he had given her
\nright of residence and the family pension to take care of herself.  About the
\nlast daughter of the second wife, he had mandated both the sons to be
\nresponsible for getting her married. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Will
\ncame into existence in suspicious circumstances that it should be discarded by
\nthe Court at the instance of the plaintiffs.  The propounder of the Will had
\ndischarged their obligation in proving the Will and the minor discrepancies
\ncannot invalidate the existence of those documents.  The findings recorded by
\nthe lower appellate Court do no call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
      21. Under the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in dismissing
\nthe second appeal in S.A.No.182 of 2005 and confirming the judgment and decree
\nof the lower appellate court in A.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of the first
\nadditional District Court, Tirunelveli dated 08.12.2004.   However, the parties
\nare allowed to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
      22. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the writ petition filed
\nby the petitioner will have to be allowed and the impugned order stands set
\naside. As far as the management of the School is concerned, the right to manage
\nthe school will devolve upon the legal heirs of K.G.Kanthakumar as per the
\njudgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.s.No.77 of 2004
\ndated 08.12.2004. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
Svki<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Joint Director of School
\n   Education,
\n  Elementary Education, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Elementary Educational
\n    Officer, Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational
\n   Officer, Tirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.11093 of 2008 and S.A.No.182 of 2005 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.P.No.11093 of 2008 K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy … Petitioner Vs 1.The Joint Director of School Education, Elementary Education, […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - 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\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T17:42:03+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T17:42:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4162,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\",\"name\":\"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T17:42:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - 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\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T17:42:03+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T17:42:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011"},"wordCount":4162,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011","name":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T17:42:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-k-ganesamoorthy-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.G.K.Ganesamoorthy vs The Joint Director Of School on 4 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/31729","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=31729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}