The burden of proving the will rested on the propounder, and in the absence of suspicious circumstances, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law was sufficient to discharge the burden.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Thsi suit has been filed for issue of a probate is respect of the Last Will and Testament dated 22-5-1986 of Jagadambal.

2. Plaint averments are as follows :

The deceased Jagadambal died on 30-11-1986 at No. 59, Bazar Road, Villivakkam, Madras 600 049. The last Will and Testament of the said Jagadambala was duly executed by her in the presence of the witnesses on 22-5-1986 and the same was registered, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. The first plaintiff along with his cousin. C.D. Ravikumar were named as executors of the said Will. The said Will was written and registered with the knowledge of the relatives of Jagadambal. The executors have informed the beneficiaries about the contents of the Will through an Advocate letter dated 20-1-1987. There was misunderstanding among family members of the plaintiffs and of the C.D. Ravikumar. C. D. Ravikumar relinquished his right as executor after making wild allegations against the plaintiffs by legal notice dated 15-6-1987. A reply was sent by the plaintiffs on 24-7-1987. C.D. Sureshkumar brother of C.D. Ravikumar filed a suit in O.S. 6011/87 before the City Civil Court, Madras for bare injunction against the first plaintiff alleging that part of one of the items covered under the Will is an ancestral property, for which he is a co-owner. There are legal heirs and beneficiaries of the deceased Jagadambal numbering 24, as mentioned in the plaint. The daughters of the deceased Jagadambal viz. Smt. Amirthavalli, Smt. Vatachala and Smt. Jothi gave consent affidavits for granting probate in favour of the plaintiffs. The male heirs are now attemptng to deprive the female heirs to take share in the properties of Jagadambal by virute of the Will. The true copies of the letter dated 20-1-1987 written by the two exectuors have been filed. Likewise the legal notice dated 15-6-1987 and the reply dated 24-7-1987 have also been filed. C.S. Sampathkumar, first son of Jagadambal has set up his third son-in-law K. Damodaran to file a suit in O.S . 3669/86 for specific performance before the City Court , Madras in respect of S. No. 276/1. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants filed a written statement alleging that the competence of Jagadambal to execute a Will in respect of the properties that belonged to the defendants is denied. The properties are ancestral properties of the defendants. C.N. Subramania Mudaliar himself had treated the property as ancestral one. Jagadambal had no independent means to purchase the property and had wholly depended on her husband. Subramania Mudaliar continued to enjoy the property as ancestral along with defendants and Doraivelu, father of the 4th defendant. After the death of Doraivelu, the property was jointly managed, by the male heirs of Suibramania Mudaliar. The female heir including the said Jagadambal do not have any iota of title in and over the property belonging to the defendants. The Will is a fabricated document and is obtained by playing fraud. The attesting witnesses viz. Kumar and Sivanandam are very close friends of the plainitff. There is variation in the signature of Jagadambal in the Will and she could not have signed as she was totally blind. Their sisters together with the plaintiffs had played fraud on the Registrar and had impersonated someone for Jagadambal. In the suit in C.S. 912/93, filed by the plaintiffs along with her sisters, she had clearly stated that the Will is a fabricated one and that alone prompted them to institute the proceedings for partition. Hence the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. The following issues were framed :

(1) Was not executant Jagadambal competent enough to execute the 'Will' dated 22-5-1986 ?

(2) Is not the 'Will' dated 22-5-1986 valid and enforceable in the eye of Law ?

(3) Should not the claim of the defendants that the 'Will' is a forged one be rejected ?

(4) Are not the properties referred to in the 'Will' belong to the executant Jagadambal abs