The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions related to the attestation and proof of execution of a Will, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with these requirements to establish the genuineness of a Will.

S. Tamilvanan, J.

1. This Original Petition has been filed under Order XXV Rule 4 of the O.S. Rules of High Court, Madras r/w Sections 222 and 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. The petitioner herein has stated that he is the brother of one Lakshmi Kanthammal, the testatrix of the Will, who died on 21.10.1989 at No.15, Ganapathy Mudali Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 14. Her husband L.Jayarama Pillai died on 27.12.1996. According to the petitioner, on 11.02.1985, while the testatrix was alive in a hale and healthy state of mind, executed a Will on 11.02.1985 in the presence of witnesses. The said Will was duly registered as Document No.11/1985 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore, whereby bequeathed absolutely the property at No.15, Old No.1, Royapettah, Chennai-14, the business at Shop No.143, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Lloyds Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai-86 and family articles, furnitures and other materials available there to petitioner's sons, respondents 1 to 3 herein and also the fourth respondent, being the daughter of her brother, the petitioner herein. However, under the Will, the life interest of the property was given in favour of the petitioner herein and hence, the petitioner is entitled to get probate of the Will. The petitioner has further stated that the value of the said assets is approximately at Rs.39 lakhs.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that though the petitioner's name is Bakthavatsalam, he used to sign as Bakthan. As per the Will, the name of the testatrix is stated as Lakshmi Kantha, however, in the death certificate, it is stated as Lakshmi Kanthammal. There is no rival claimants, the respondents 1 to 4 are sons and daughters of the petitioner and the petitioner is claiming probate of the Will, seeking life interest for him and absolute right in favour of his sons, the respondents 1 to 3 and daughter, fourth respondent herein.

4. The Death certificate of Lakshmi Kanthammal, wife of Late. Jayarama Pillai, dated 31.10.1989 issued by the authorities is marked as Ex.P.1. As per the document, it is seen that Lakshmi Kanthammal died on 21.10.1989. As per the averments of the petition, the testatrix husband died on 27.12.1996, however, in the Death Certificate of Lakshmi Kanthammal, dated 31.10.1989, she is stated as wife Late. Jayarama Pillai. Had Jayarama Pillai, husband of Lakshmi Kanthammal died on 27.12.1996 in the death certificate of Lakshmi Kanthammal issued on 31.10.1989 by the authorities, it could not have been stated as wife of Late Jayarama Pillai.

5. The second document, Ex.P.2 is the original Will, said to have been executed by Lakshmi Kanthammal, w/o Jayarama Pillai on 11.02.1985. In Ex.P.2, original Will, LTI of Lakshmi Kanthammal is said to have been affixed by her. She was identified before the Sub-Registrar by one L. Angamuthu s/o Late. Ramasamy and one K.AR. Somasundhar, s/o. Ramalingam is also stated as one of the attestors to the Will. Ex.P.3 is the Death Certificate of L. Jayaraman issued on 31.12.1976 and as per the Death Certificate, the said Jayarama Pillai died on 27.12.1976. Ex.P.4 is the written consent given by the respondents 1 to 4 in favour of their father, the petitioner herein. Ex.P.5 is the affidavit of asset showing the net value of the property at Rs.39,00,000/-.

6. The petitioner, P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that Ex.P.2, Will was attested by two attesting witnesses, namely R. Angamuthu and K.AR. Somasundar, however, according to him, the whereabouts of both the attesting witnesses are not known to him, hence, he could not examine even one of the witnesses to the document.

7. As decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 365, as per Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, a Will has to be proved not only by providing the signature of the executor, but also that it should be found free from any suspicious circumstances, in proving the Will.

8. It is relevant to ref