The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in determining the validity of a holographic Will, addressing issues of undue influence, the Doctrine of Election, and the operation of Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

1. This Appeal arises against the grant of Letters of Administration to the Will dated 31.7.1986 of one Dr. S. Gurubatham.

2. The First Respondent is the youngest, son of the deceased and was the Petitioner before the lower Court. He moved a Petition in PR.O.P.No.9 of 1996, on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem, under Section 278 r/w Section 234 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, towards proving a Will in common form and sought grant of Probate in his favour in respect of properties bequeathed to him by his father Late Dr. S. Gurubatham. The Respondents were the three daughters of the deceased Testator and three sons of a predeceased son of the Testator, who had died on 15.8.1994. The Will dated 3.6.1980 was a holographic Will, and had been registered on 8.7.1980. Under the Will, the First Respondent/Petitioner was given a hospital building which belonged to the Testator since he had practiced with the Testator and helped to establish the Gurubatham Eye Hospital. While one of the sisters was not granted any property under the Will, since the Testator had helped her in building a house, the other sisters were bequeathed house property which had belonged to the wife of the Testator, who had predeceased him. The elder son of the Testator did not obtain any benefit under the Will since the Will informed of his having been provided with a farm and house at Omalur, which had been sold by him. The Executor appointed under the Will predeceased the Testator. The three daughters of the Testator filed a Memo informing their consent to grant of probate in favour of the First Respondent/Petitioner. The Second Appellant herein filed a Counter informing the Will to be the outcome of undue influence and threat. The Appellants 1 and 3 herein adopted the same.

3. It was contended that the Testator was of advanced ‘age’ was suffering from diabetes, both his legs were amputated and that he was dependent upon the First Respondent/Petitioner for his day-to-day affairs, as his other children were away from Salem. As regards the Will informing of the property at Omalur having been given to the father of the Appellants/Respondents 4 to 6 and of his having sold the same, it was contended that the properties at Omalur were purchased by the father of the Appellants through disposal of his wife’s jewels and with his own funds. It was contended that the Testator had utilized the services of the father of the Appellants who had been a graduate in Agriculture, to convert vast extent of farm lands purchased by the Testator into garden lands at Shanthipuram and that the hospital bequeathed in favour of the First Respondent was put up through utilization of sale proceeds of the lands at Shanthipuram.

4. It was further contended that the eldest daughter of the Testator and her husband had decent earnings and had constructed a house out of their own funds. It was contended that since both the eldest son and eldest daughter were disinherited and the attesting witnesses were close relatives of the First Respondent/Petitioner, the Will was not free of doubt and therefore, Probate ought not to be granted.

5. By way of an additional Counter, the Appellants informed that the Petitioner had joined his sister, the Third Respondent herein in filing a Suit claiming a share of the house that had belonged to their mother/wife of the Testator, in O.S.No.715/1995 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Salem, and thus, the First Respondent/Petitioner had elected to avoid the Will. By way of reply to the Counter the First Respondent/Petitioner had informed that he was under the bona fide belief that the Will was only in respect of the Testator’s share and that the Testator could dispose only his property under the Will and as such he was not properly aware of the right/duties in respect of the Will. Before the lower Court, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the First Respondent/Petitioner and one witness on behalf of the Appellants/Respondents. The First