There is presumption of genuineness of Will.

Plaintiff filed O.P.No.288 of 1996 for issue of letters of administration. The O.P. was converted into T.O.S.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff is one of the legatees under the Will and is related to the deceased being his daughter in law. The deceased M.P.Sivagnanam executed a Will dated 26. 1993, at 15, Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Madras in the presence of the witnesses and this Will is the last Will and testament of the deceased M.P.Sivagnanam. The said M.P.Sivagnanam died leaving behind him his the legal heirs to succeed to his properties. As per the Will, the legal heirs of Thirunavukkarasu, predeceased son of the deceased are entitled to the properties, the amount of assets which is likely to come into the hands of the plaintiff does not exceed in aggregate a sum of Rs.6,31,040.91. The plaintiff is entitled to issue of letters of administration.

3. Thedefendant filed written statement contending as follows:

This defendant is one of the daughters of late M.P.Sivagnanam and who died on 10. 1995. The said Sivagnanam had great love and affection for this defendant. The defendant and her sister Kannaki and the children and wife of her pre-deceased brother Thirunavukkarasu are the only heirs of late Sivagnanam. There was no misunderstanding between the defendant and her father. The defendant was in very good terms with her father. There was no reason for omitting the defendant and her sister as his heirs. The defendant was not given any jewels. The recital in the Will that the defendant and her sister are provided with two houses in Madras is not correct. The Will is unnatural one. There is no reason for disinheriting the defendant or her sister and the Will should have been prepared by undue influence by the plaintiff over the deceased. The recital in the Will that the defendant was given houses is false. Even though the allotment of land from the Housing Board is in the name of the defendants brother, the entire cost of the land as well as the instalment towards building cost was paid by the defendants house. The Will was obtained by undue influence. The deceased could not have bene in sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the alleged Will. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to issue of letters of administration.

4. Onthe above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

.• (i) Whether the Will was executed by deceased testator.

.• (ii) Whether the Will was executed by the testator under undue influence of the plaintiff.

.• (iii) To what reliefs.

5. Issues: Petitioner/plaintiff is the daughter in law of the testator, late M.P.Sivagnanam. The said Sivagnanam had two daughters, the defendant and one Kannaki and the predeceased son Thirunavukkarasu. The deceased M.P.Sivagnanam executed the Will dated 26. 93 at Madras under Ex.P-2. Under Ex.P-2, the testator has given life estate in respect of immovable properties to the plaintiff, his daughter in law who is the wife of his predeceased son Thirunavukkarasu and then the properties are to pass to the plaintiffs two sons viz., the grandsons of the testator through his predeceased son after the life time of the plaintiff. The other daughter of the deceased testator Kannaki has no objection for issue of letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff and she has filed consent affidavit. All the children of the plaintiff have filed consent affidavit agreeing for issue of letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff. So, the defendant is the only contesting party.

6. According to the plaintiff, M.P.Sivagnanam executed the Will Ex.P-2 and it was his last Will and testament and it was validly executed and attested by the attestors and the plaintiff is entitled to probate of the Will. The defendant contends that Ex.P-1 was obtained under undue influence and it is unnatural and there is no reason to disinherit the defendant or her sister Kannaki.

7. Ex.P-2 is the registered Will and it is in the handwriting of the t