M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in T.O.S.No.6 of 1994, whereby Letters of Administration, on request of the respondent herein, was granted.

.2. The respondent herein originally made an application and subsequently, it was converted to the suit. The allegations, with which the respondent has sought the relief can be stated thus:

.The plaintiff in the suit and the defendant therein are the children of one G. Vasantha Devi. She died on 11. 1992 at London, where she was staying on a temporary visit. She executed her last Will and testament at Madras on 010. 1988 in the presence of two witnesses, namely D. Narasimhan and N. Gopalan. The testatrix left behind her except the plaintiff, her son C. Ananda Sundararaman, who is shown as defendant. She had not appointed any executor. There arose a necessity for initiating proceedings for getting Letters of Administration.

3. On appearance, the appellant/defendant contested the suit, inter-alia, stating that his mother Vasantha Devi had no right in the property and hence she could not execute the Will, since the properties belong to the joint family; that she was not in a sound and disposing state of mind, since her health during the relevant time was not in good condition; that she was always under the influence of the plaintiff; that the said Will, in respect of which Letters of Administration was sought for, was a fabricated document; that the execution of the Will was specifically denied along with the truth, validity and genuineness; that both the attesting witnesses are the persons obligatory of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has obtained his signature in the blank papers by exercising fraud and had converted it as the consent affidavit and that actually, the defendant was the owner of the property, in question and hence the request of the plaintiff was to be rejected and the suit was to be dismissed.

.4. On the above pleadings, 5 issues were framed. Both sides were given an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. After hearing the submissions made and also considering the materials placed, the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit, granting Letters of Administration, as asked for and hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the defendant.

5. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:

a) Whether the Will, dated 010. 1988 prepared by the testatrix is true and valid, as contended by the plaintiff or whether this is the fraudulent document, as contended by the appellant/defendant?

b) Whether the document has come into existence by exercising undue influence?

6. Advancing arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant, inter-alia, would submit that the property originally belonged to the father of both the parties; that he executed a settlement deed in the year 1969; that a reading of the settlement deed would clearly indicate that after the life time of Vasantha Devi, it should reach on his children; that a perusal of the Will would clearly indicate that not only the appellant/defendant, the only son, was disinherited, but also the grand children; that this is the strong suspicious circumstance; that it was the appellant, who was looking after his mother, since the plaintiff was employed in the Embassy at England; that without the knowledge of the appellant, the Will has been brought about; that the propounder has exercised undue influence and has also committed fraud on the testatrix; that the respondent is only beneficiary under the impugned document; that though the testatrix is the wife of an Advocate, she was not capable of writing her own Will; that the discrepancies found in the evidence of the witnesses, in particular the attesting witness and also P.W.3, A. Venkatesan, a practising Advocate, who is related to the family, would clearly indicate that the testament could not have come into existence as put forth by the respondents side; that