Will signed by attestors before testator signed it.

1. Plaintiff is the executor named in the Will executed by Mrs. D. Logambal which is her last Will and testament. The deceased left behind her husband G.Dyvadheenam and sons G.David Ebenezer and Robert Prabhakar the plaintiff herein. The amount of assets which are likely to come to the hands of the plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate of a sum of Rs.27,300 and the net amount of the said assets after deducting all items which the plaintiff, by law, is allowed to deduct is of the value of Rs.26,300. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of late D.Logambal and make a full and true inventory thereof. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit for probate of the Will.

2. Thedefendant filed written statement contending as follows:

The will propounded by the plaintiff is not a genuine one. The deceases Logambal was actually bedridden. She did not execute the Will of her own. The Will is not in the handwriting of the deceased and the deceased was not fluent in English. The defendant was not provided with any property and there was no reason or provocation for the deceased to eliminate the defendant completely from the picture. The other property owned by the mother was sold by the parents and even the sale proceeds nor any portion thereof did not reach the defendant. It is strange that the plaintiff who is the main beneficiary under the Will is appointed as the Executor of the Will. The same is very unnatural, unreal and against law. Even the two attesting witnesses viz. R.Paul Victor Samuel and K.Yegambaram are none else than the brother-in-law and friend respectively of the plaintiff. If really the Will was a true and genuine one, the father of the parties, Dyvadheenam who was very much alive at that time should have taken the lead in execution of the Will and he should have made all preparations and be the main attesting witness of the document. The surrounding circumstances are very much against the Will and it is unnatural. The signature was obtained in blank paper and the contents of the Will was obviously filled up subsequently and it is revealed on the very look of the document. There is no signature in the second page of the Will. The Will was not at all executed by the testatrix while she was in a sound disposing state of mind. The Will is unnatural. There is no detail with regard to jewels left by the deceased. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the Will propounded by the plaintiff dated 23. 1987 is a true, genuine and a valid one.

2. Whether the Will was executed by the deceased D.Logambal voluntarily and in a sound state of mind and health.

3. Whether the signature under the Will dated 23. 1987 obtained in a blank paper and the contents thereof filled up subsequently.

4. Whether the appointment of the beneficiary under the said Will as executor is lawful.

5. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for propounding the Will Ex.P-1 executed by his mother D.Logambal. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The testatrix died on 287. Ex.P-1 Will is dated 23. 87 and it is an unregistered Will. P.W.1 speaks in his evidence that Ex.P-1 contains the signature of his mother and she did not execute any other Will prior to Ex.P-1. Under Ex.P-1 the suit property has been bequeathed to the plaintiff and he has been appointed as the executor of the Will. P.W.1 says that as he was attending his mother, the property was given to him by his mother. The defendant contends that Ex.P-1 Will is not a true and genuine one and his mother did not execute that Will and himself the other son has been completely disinherited and the plaintiff is not entitled to probate of the Will.

5. P.W.1 says that there was family settlement under Ex.P-2 and thereby property and Hyderabad was sold by his parents and the sale proceeds was given to his elder brother and his c