The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to remove legitimate suspicions surrounding the execution and validity of a will, especially in cases of unnatural disposition and exclusion of natural heirs without valid reasons.

1. [For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties as mentioned in TOS No.2 of 1981 are referred in this judgment]

The allegations contained in the plaint in TOS No.2 of 1981 are as follows-

1[A] Both the parties are the sons and daughters of Pattammal and Govindaswamy Naicker. They are residing in Door No.9 (New No.60), Swamipillai Stree4t, Choolai, Chennai – 600 007. Pattammal died on 15.07.1977 at the above said address. The suit property belonged to her. She executed a registered will on 02.06.1977 bequeathing her property namely the suit property to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant herein. The amount of assets which is likely to come to the petitioner's hands does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.44,780/-. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the properties of Pattammal.

1[B] The plaintiff being poor and illiterate was not aware of the procedure and was contented that the will executed in her favour under the premise that the will itself would give her valid right in the property. The defendants were allowed to be in possession partly in the bequeathed property, began giving the trouble and hence the plaintiff consulted and got legal advice that she has to file a Testamentary Original Suit. The original will was also misplaced and could be traced only during 2nd week of July 1980 and it was accidentally found to have got up mixed with other documents belonging to the plaintiff's father-in-law. Hence, the suit could not be filed within three years from the date of death of the deceased. Hence, letters of administration may be granted.

2. Written statement filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants contains the following allegations -

2[A] The defendants deny the validity of the suit will alleged to have been executed by Pattammal. She did not execute any will. She was not in a sound state of mind to execute any will on 02.06.1977 and she was not well and was also admitted to the hospital. Pattammal can sign, can put her signature but in the will, thumb impression is found. Even the same was obtained when she was in the stage of not understanding the same. It was forcibly taken by her son-in-law in a taxi under coercion. The suit is not maintainable for the reason of non-joinder of necessary parties. The sister was not made as a party.

2[B] Deceased Pattammal had executed a registered will in the year 1968 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants herein in which she had affixed her signatures. The will in question is not valid and genuine but prepared by the plaintiff and her husband. The will was not attested properly. It was not executed by Pattammal under her own will and wish. The contents of the will were not explained to her in the presence of witnesses. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3. The following are the averments found in the plaint in TOS No.26 of 2008 :-

3[A] Pattammal is the mother of both the parties. She was in possession of the immovable property, the suit property. She died on 15.07.1997 at her residence. While she was in sound and disposing state of mind, out of love and affection, executed a will in favour of the petitioners on 14.08.1968 bequeathing the schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. It was duly executed on 14.08.1968 in the presence of witnesses, (1) Ramanujam Naicker s/o Erusappa Naicker at Kayirambedu Village, Kooduvancheri Post, Chengelput District, (2) Kanniappa Naidu, S/o Govindasamy Naidu at Kayirambedu Village, Kooduvancheri Post, Chengelput District and (3) P.Govindasamy Naicker who is the husband of deceased Pattammal. Out of the three witnesses, the father of the plaintiffs already died and the scribe of the will is also no more. The details of witnesses appear at the foot of the will. It is the only last will executed by Pattammal.

It was duly registered at the office of the Sub Registrar of West Madras. The amount of assets which are likely to come into petitioners hands does not exceed in the aggrega