The suit is one aiming to get Letters of Ad­ministration, based upon a Will, said to have been executed by one S.A. Balu Naicker, who expired on 14.6.1987.

2. S.A. Balu Naicker and Muniammal are the parents of the plaintiff, defendant and one Manomani (the first respondent in the O.P. and not a party to the TOS, since not contested), the plaintiff and the defendant being the sons, the said Manomani being the daughter. According to the plaintiff, S.A. Balu Naicker had executed the Will, bequeathing his properties, on 9.9.1983, which is duly attested and thereafter, he died on 14.6.1987. The mother of the parties, Muniammal, also died on 25.9.1995, after the death of Balu Naicker. When the Original Petition was filed by the plaintiff, seeking to issue Letters of Administration, annexing the Will, in his favour, as against the defendant and the said Manomani, since the defendant filed the caveat, the O. P. was converted into this TOS.

3. The defendant, in his written statement, would contend that in the property covered under the Will, he is entitled to half share, since he had also contributed funds to build up the, superstructure; that pursuant to the same, even during the lifetime of Balu Naicker, one portion was allotted to him; that his father did not execute the alleged Will in a sound disposing state of mind and in this view, it is not a genuine one, which would be clear from the fact that the alleged Will is brought into existence by the plaintiff only after the lifetime of his mother, in order to suppress the truth, and therefore, the plaintiffs not entitled to any relief.

4. On the above basis, the following issues were settled, for settling the dispute between the parties, by this Court, as per the order dated 19.6.2002:

1. Whether the will executed by the deceased Balu Naicker on 9.9.1983 is true, genuine and valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the issue of Letters of Administration?

3. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

Issues No. 1 and 2:

5. Ex.P.2 is the Registered Will said to have been executed by Balu Naicker on 9.9.1983, which is registered on the same day, under which it is said, the life estate was given to the plaintiff, giving or vesting the vested reminder to the Sons of the plaintiff. The Will was executed within the city limit and the property is also situated within the original jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this fact, to administer the property, the Will has to be proved. Therefore, originally, as said above, a petition has been filed, which is converted into the suit, because of the contest by the defendant.

6. As seen from Ex.P.2, this document is attested by two persons by name J. Manuel and P.S. Krishnaraj. It is an admitted fact that the Will was registered on the same day, showing the document was registered in accordance with law, on the basis of the acceptance by the testator before the Registrar, which may, to some extent, support, the case of the plaintiff. The mere fact, the Will is registered, certainly, will not relieve the plaintiff from discharging his burden, as contemplated under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that both the attestors to the Will by name J. Manuel and Krishnaraj died, dates are also available, not at all challenged. Therefore, examining at least one of the attesting witnesses, as mandated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, became an impossibility. Therefore, we have to see what is the other mode of proof contemplated under law, if both the attesting witnesses are not alive.

8. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act commands, "if no attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person." Therefore, to appreciate the above law and the facts on hand, it should be remembered, what is the stand taken by the parties, regardin