The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the testator's mental capacity at the time of executing the will and the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and the powers of the District Registrar in taking further evidence in appeal.

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 17 of 1941, instituted by the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, for a declaration that the document which purports to be the last will and testament of one Peruma Goundan is not genuine and had not been executed by him while in a sound disposing state of mind. The defendants to the suit were Pachayammal the widow, Kolandai Goundan a sisters son of the testator, Kunjam-mal a brothers daughter, and one Palani Goundan, who has been appointed as trustee of a piece of land set apart for charity by the testator in the will. There was another suit, O.S. No. 56 of 1941, which was also disposed of by the same judgment. The latter suit was instituted by Pachayammal, the widow of the deceased testator, for the recovery of possession of an item of property which according to her belonged to the testator and had been taken unlawful possession of by the appellant. This suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and there has been no appeal preferred against the decree therein. In both the suits, however, the main issue raised and determined was whether the document, Ex. P-i, is genuine, and is the last will and testament of Peruma Goundan. Peruma Goundan had two brothers who became divided from him in 1918. Appellants 1 to 4 are the sons of one of these brothers, by name Merappa Goundan. The fifth appellant, Nanjappa Goundan, is the son of the other brother, Sinna Goundan. Peruma Goundan died on the 14th August, 1938, leaving his widow Pachayammal, and no issue, male or female. The will bears the date the 10th August, 1938, and contains bequests in favour of the several defendants. The bequests in favour of all except Pachayammal are comparatively small, the bulk of the properties being given to Pachayammal herself. Among these legatees it is perhaps necessary to refer to Kolandai Goundan, the second defendant, who is a sisters son of the testator, to whom a piece of wet land, of the extent of 1.20 acres is bequeathed. As regards the appellants, who are the brothers sons and the reversioners to the estate, the testator gave his share in the reversion of certain properties set apart by Peruma Goundan and his two brothers for the maintenance of their mother. It is not suggested that the provisions of the will are unnatural or do not take account of persons who had a claim to the bounty of the testator.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge in an elaborate judgment has held on the evidence and the broad probabilities of the case that there was no doubt that Peruma Goundan executed the will Ex. P-I when he was in a sound disposing state of mind, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned advocate for the appellants has taken us through most of the evidence adduced in the case and to a large extent repeated the arguments which had been advanced in the Court below but without success. As our view of the evidence and the probabilities coincides with that of the learned Subordinate Judge, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence in any great detail. We think it sufficient to refer to the main features of the case as presented in the evidence for the purpose of the appeal.

[His Lordship discussed the evidence and proceeded:]

3. Before we leave this witness Pachayammal, it is necessary to mention a circumstance of great importance to which this as well as other witnesses speak. The importance is due to the fact that it throws a good deal of light on the mental capacity of the testator on the morning on which the will is said to have been executed. It would seem that on the 9th August a suit was instituted against the testator and an application for attachment before judgment was also taken out. The summons in the suit and the notice of the application for attachment were brought to the deceased at about 9 a.m. on the morning of the 10th by an amin of the Court. According to Pachayammal, the testator took the summons and the notice and s