The exclusion of one branch from inheritance in a Will can lead to an inference that the Will was not voluntary and was executed under suspicious circumstances, which may invalidate the Will.

S. Jagadeesan, J.

1. The defendant in T.O.S.4 of 1990 is the appellant herein. The appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1995 of the learned single Judge in T.O.S.No.4 of 1990 on the file of this court. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.539 of 1989 for the issue of probate in respect of the Will executed by one M.R. Singaravelu Nayagar. Since caveat was entered by the appellant, the said O.P was converted into a suit and numbered as T.O.S.No.4 of 1990.

2. The case of the respondent is that the testator Singaravelu Nayagar executed a Will on 24.9.1976 and registered as Document No.66 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Purasavakkam. The testator had two daughters viz., Kausalya, the appellant herein and one Saraswathi. The respondent is the eldest son of the said Saraswathi. Apart from the respondent the said Saraswathi has two more sons viz., Gopi and Manohar. The testator appointed the respondent as executor under the suit Will and as such he is entitled to get the probate.

3. Theappellant filed a written statement contending that the Will alleged to have been executed by Singaravelu Nayagar is a forged one and that the testator had executed a Will dated 4.11.1982, much earlier to the execution of the suit Will whereunder he bequeathed the property at No. 16, Manicka Naicken Street, Purasavakkam, Madras, giving equal share to both the daughters. The testator had also bequeathed a sum of Rs.10,000 in favour of the appellant's first son Lakshmi narayanan and the respondent herein. Another sum of Rs. 10,000 was directed to be realised from one T.R.Poonamchari with a direction that on realisation, the same should be shared equally between the said Lakshminarayanan and the respondent. The testator also executed an authorisation letter directing the appellant to collect rents from the upstairs portion and the other daughter Saraswathi to collect the rents from the downstairs and that the respondent should be given the first floor. Since 1986 Singaravelu Nayagar was not keeping good health and he preferred to stay along with the appellant's son one Kannan in the upstairs portion. The respondent's mother Saraswathi along with the respondent and his brothers wanted to grab the house property exclusively for themselves and made false representation to the testator Singaravelu Nayagar in order to drive the appellant away from the property. The respondent's father treated the testator with cruelty and he assaulted the testator and caused bleeding injury. It is the wish of the testator that the property should be divided between his two daughters equally. In fact the appellant was not allowed to see her father, the testator till his death. After the death of the testator, the respondent took control of the room occupied by the testator along with his brothers. They destroyed several documents which include Wills executed by the testator. The Will now under dispute could not have been written by the testator as pleaded by the respondent and as such he is not entitled to get the probate.

4. Both the parties let in evidence oral as well as documentary. The learned single Judge, after considering the same by his judgment dated 25.9.1995 granted probate of the Will dated 24.9.1986 finding that the Will is a genuine one, executed by the testator Singaravelu Nayagar. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Subramaniya Iyer contended that the testator left behind him two daughters, the appellant herein and Saraswathi, the mother of the respondent. The appellant is having two sons and two daughters. The other daughter of the testator Saraswathi left behind her one daughter and three sons. The testator, under the disputed Will, had bequeathed the immovable property and other cash deposits to his three grand sons, the respondent herein and his brothers. One branch of the testator had been totally excluded from inheritance. The reason g