Defendant could not establish undue influence.

This testimentary original suit has been filed by the plaintiff to grant Letters of Administration with the Will annexed having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. Theshort facts are:

The defendant Ananda Sundararaman is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was formerly residing at No.17, Nevis Road, London, S.W.17. As her mother who came to reside with her died at London, it became necessary for the plaintiff to take charge of the property and administer the same and, therefore, she has now come down to Madras with a view to stay there permanently. The writing hereunto annexed marked with the letter ‘A’ is the last Will of her mother C.Vasantha Devi. The property described in the Will exclusively belongs to her mother. The said Will was duly executed by her mother at Madras on 10. 1988 in the presence of witnesses, whose names appear at the foot of the Will, namely, D.Narasimhan and N.Gopalan. Under the Will, the property had been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and no executor was appointed by the Testatrix. The amount of assets which are likely to come into the hands of the plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.5,20,000. The net amount after deduction of all items would be of the value of Rs.5,19,000. No application has been made by the plaintiff to any District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for probate of the Will. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the said C.Vasantha Devi, the deceased concerning the Will by first paying all her dues and then her legacies therein bequeathed as far as the asserts Will extend and to make a true and full inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. She further undertakes to render a true account of the said properties and credits within one year from the said date. Therefore, Letters of Administration may be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The defendant in the written statement has alleged that the properties are joint family properties. The testatrix was not in a sound disposing State of mind and health during the time she executed the Will and she was always under the influence of the sister of the defendant. The Will is a fabricated document. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the execution of the Will. The truth, validity, genuineness and binding nature of the Will is also denied. The attesting witnesses are obligatory persons of the plaintiff. The defendant signed in some blank papers believing the plaintiff which have been used by the plaintiff for preparing consent affidavit. The defendant is the owner of the property and, therefore, no Letters of Administration can be granted.

4. Onthe above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for trial:

.• 1. Whether the Will dated 10. 1988 propounded by the plaintiff is true and valid or whether it is a fabricated document.

.• 2. Whether the Will propounded by the plaintiff was executed by the testatrix in a sound and disposing State of mind.

.• 3. Whether the Will was obtained by the plaintiff from the Testatrix by undue influence.

.• 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of Letters of Administration.

.• 5. To What relief.

5. Issues Nos.1 to 3: The dispute is regarding the holograph Will of Vasantha Devi, dated 10. 1988, marked as Ex.P-13. The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant is the son of Vasantha Devi. The evidence of the propounder of the Will, namely, the plaintiff makes it clear that the property under dispute came to be owned by her mother, as per the settlement deed Ex.P-2, dated 12. 1969 executed by her father. Her father got the property from his aunt as per the original of Ex.P-1, settlement deed, dated 30.6.1956. Though it is contended by the defendant that the property is a joint family property and he has got a share by birth, having regard to the law on the subject of probate pr