The burden of proving the validity and genuineness of a Will lies on the propounder, and when there are suspicious circumstances, it is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court.

1. This appeal was filed by the defendants/respondents 4 to 6 in O.P.No.587/2006 against the judgment and decree passed in T.O.S.No.47 of 2006 dated 28.2.2008, granting letters of administration in favour of plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the sons of one Late M.S.Manivana Naicker @ M.S.Manivanan. The said Manivanan executed a Will dated 14.09.1992 which was subsequently registered. In the said Will, the plaintiffs were bequeathed with life estate in the suit property and absolute right was given to the children of the plaintiffs. The first and the second plaintiffs being the beneficiaries of the Will dated 14.09.1992 have come forward with a suit for grant of letters of administration of the Will executed by late M.S.Manivana Naicker @ M.S.Manivanan. The deceased testator did not execute any other Will and did not own any other property, except the property mentioned in the schedule to the suit. Apart from the plaintiffs, the testator had three daughters viz., Vijaya, Yasodha and Girija. The said Vijaya is the first respondent in O.P.No.587/2006. The first defendant Dhanalakshmi is the daughter of Yasodha. The second and third defendants are the children of Girija. The said Yasodha and Girija are no more.

According to the plaintiffs, the propounder of the Will has directed the plaintiffs to pay Rs.15,000/- each and out of the total sum of Rs.30,000/-, Vijaya, Yasoda and Girija are entitled to Rs.10,000/- each. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for grant of letters of administration of the Will dated 14.09.1992

3. Written statement was filed by the second defendant/5th respondent in O.P.No.587 of 2006 and the defendants 1 and 3/respondents 4 and 6 in O.P.No.587 of 2006 have adopted the written statement filed by the second defendant wherein it is stated as follows:

The testator is the grand father of defendants 1 to 3 and the father of the plaintiffs. Yasodha is one of the daughters of Manivannan and the mother of the first defendant. The second and third defendants are the children of Vijaya, who is one of the daughters of Manivannan. According to the defendants, few months before the death of the testator, the testator was suffering from throat cancer and he was bedridden and he was taken care of by his daughters only and not by the plaintiffs. The medical and other expenses of the testator was spent from the pension amount received by the testator who was a railway employee and by the amount given by his sons-in-law. According to the defendants, the Will dated 14.9.1992 was not true and genuine document but a fabricated one. The Will dated 14.09.1992 was not executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was attested by the witnesses who were closely associated with the plaintiffs and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.No.587 of 2006 have no objection for grant of letters of administration in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. In the said suit, the learned single Judge framed the following issues:

i) Whether the Will dated 14.09.1992 said to have been executed by Manivana Naicker is valid and genuine?

ii) Whether the Will dated 14.09.1992 has been executed by M.S.Manivannan Naicker in a sound disposing state of mind?

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the submissions made on either side, the learned single Judge found that the Will dated 14.09.1992 was executed by Manivanna Naicker in a sound and disposing state of mind and it is valid and genuine. The learned single Judge decreed the suit and ordered letters of administration in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal at the instance of defendants/respondents 4 to 6 in O.P.No.587/2006 against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge.

7. Heard, Ms.P.T.Asha appearing for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.K.Gopalraj, learned counsel appearing f