The burden of proof is on the propounder of a Will to prove that the Will was duly executed and that the testator was of sound mind at the time of execution. If the testator's sanity is disputed, the burden of proof shifts to the person impeaching the Will to establish that the testator was of unsound mind at the time of execution.

1. The plaintiff originally filed O.P.635/87 for the issue of probates in respect of the last Will and Testament executed by has mother Kuppulakshmi Ammal. As the defendant filed caveat, the O.P. was converted into T.O.S. and numbered as T.O.S. 33/88.

2. The plaintiffs case is his mother died on 17.5.83 at Padma Clinic Nursing Home, Madras. At the time of her death, she was residing with the plaintiff at No. 7, New No. 10, Telegraph Abboy Naidu Street, Madras. 1. The said Kuppulakshmi Ammal duly executed a Will and Testament at Madras on 11.3.1966 and the plaintiff has been appointed as the executor in the said Will. The plaintiff was not aware that the Will has to be probated. Only at the time of filing the petition, he came to know that the probate is to be obtained. Hence there is some delay in filing the petition, for seeking for probate.

3. The defendant, who is the sister of the plaintiff, has filed the written statement, contesting the claim of the plaintiff. Her case is that her mother Kuppulakshmi Ammal died intestate on 17.5.83. Both father and mother did not leave any Wilf. Her mother is the owner of the house at No. 10, Telegraph Abboy Naidu Street, Kondithope, Madras-79, which was given to her as Sreedhana and on the death of her mother Kuppulakshmi Ammal, the plaintiff and defendant, as legal heirs, are entitled to succeed to the property. She has also claimed share in the property of the father, who predeceased her mother. The further case of the defendant is that her mother was suffering from mental disorder and had been going through frequent depression attacks. She was not possessed of normal mental capacity and she was used to be admitted in the mental hospital for treatment for her mental disorder. The plaintiff is collecting the rents from the property, and protesting his conduct, the defendant issued a notice dated 19.5.83, claiming absolute rights to the mothers property and half share in the fathers agricultural lands. The plaintiff has also taken the jewellery of the mother and the defendant is entitled to the half share in the jewellery also. Since the plaintiff did not settle the matters amicably the defendant has filed suit C.S.624/87 for partition of the suit properties. The plaintiffs claim that there is a Will left by their mother Kuppulakshmi Ammal is false and the alleged Will dated 11.3.66 is forged and prepared by the plaintiff for making unlawful gain. Taking advantage of Kuppulakshmi Ammals unsound health plaintiff had prepared the alleged Will. The plaintiff has done so in order to seek vengence on the defendant because the plaintiff agreed to give his daughter in marriage to the defendants son. The defendants son filed suit O.S. 8111/81 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the plaintiff. Till 6.9.87, the advocate Commissioner appointed in the partition suit C.S.624/87 visited the suit property of the plaintiff, on 6.9.87 the plaintiff did not reveal about the existence of the Will executed by their mother as well as father. The theory of the existence of the alleged Will have come only recently and the delay in keeping the so called Will in cold storage itself proves forgery. The attestation of the Will by C.S. Narayanaswamy and T.N. Kasthurirangan is false, the said C.S. Narayanaswamy, one of the attestors, is an employee of late Dhakshinamoorty, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. He has admitted to the defendant that the alleged Will dated 11.3.66 was not signed by him as a witness. The papers signed in 1970 or 1972 by C.S. Narayanaswamy in blank papers, which was signed by the said Kuppulakshmi Ammal has been misused by the plaintiff. The other witness T.M. Kasturirangan is the very close friend of the plaintiff and the alleged Will is only prepared by the plaintiff so as to deprive the defendant of her right to the properties.

4. The following issues arise for consideration;

(1) Whether the Will dated 11.3.1966 is forged and prepared by the plainti