The legal principle established is the importance of proving due execution and attestation of a Will as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the rejection of claims based on suspicious circumstances.

Challenge in this civil miscellaneous appeal is to the order dated 09.12.1993 passed in Probate Original Petition No.82 of 1992 by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin.

2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed the petition in question on the file of the trial Court, praying to probate the Will dated 21.07.1988.

3. It is stated in the petition that the deceased Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar has resided in Sakkammalpuram Village (Servaikkaranmadam Post) and he passed away on 27.05.1992 at Kavalkadu Village. On 21.07.1988 the said Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar has executed the Will in question in favour of the petitioner in sound and disposing state of mind. He cancelled the earlier Will executed by him on 24.03.1982 in favour of his wife Balammal. The respondent has no right in the property bequeathed under the Will dated 21.07.1988. Under the said circumstances, for the purpose of getting probate to the Will dated 21.07.1988, the present petition has been filed.

4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it is stated that the deceased Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar and his wife Balammal have passed away without any issue. In the year 1962, both of them have adopted the respondent and since then the respondent has become their adopted son. The respondent is the son of the sister of the said Balammal. In the year 1982, the said Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar has lost his eyesight and the respondent has taken him to hospital for giving treatment and in the year 1985, he has lost his eyesight completely. On 17.10.1987 the said Balammal has passed away. After her demise, the said Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar has not executed any Will much less on 21.07.1988 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent is having absolute right over the properties alleged to have been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner under the Will dated 21.07.1988. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the trial Court has allowed the petition. Against the order passed by the trial Court, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant.

6. The sum and substance of the contention urged on the side of the respondent/petitioner is that the executant of the alleged Will dated 21.07.1988 has resided in Sakkammalpuram Village (Servaikkaranmadam Post) and he passed away on 27.05.1992 at Kavalkadu Village and before his demise on 21.07.1988 he has executed the Will in question in favour of the petitioner in sound and disposing state of mind and the respondent has had no right in the properties bequeathed under the said Will. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

7. It has been contended on the side of the appellant/respondent that in the year 1962 the respondent has been adopted by the executant viz., Santhosa Devairrakka Nadar and his wife Balammal and since then he has become their adopted son and in the year 1982, the executant lost his eyesight to certain extent and in the year 1985, he has attained cecity and after the demise of his wife, he has not executed any Will much less on 21.07.1988 in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the present petition deserves dismissal.

8. Before considering the various limbs of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent, the Court has to look into as to whether the respondent/petitioner has proved the due execution and attestation of the Will dated 21.07.1988.

9. The Will alleged to have been executed by the executant in favour of the petitioner has been marked as Ex.P2. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows;

“Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- If a document