K.K. Sasidharan, J.

1. This Testamentary Original Suit at the instance of the legatee of a Will dated 28 February 1991 executed by Smt. Rajam Sarangachari seeks a decree directing probate of the said Will.

The facts:

The plaintiff originally filed O.P. No. 136 of 2008 to grant probate of the Will stated to have been executed by his mother Smt. Rajam Sarangachari. The plaintiff contended that Smt. Rajam Sarangachari executed her last will and testament on 28 February 1991 in the presence of two witnesses. The plaintiff was appointed as the executor of the Will. The Will contained certain stipulations with regard to the disposal of movable and immovable properties left by the testatrix. The house property bearing Old No. 43-A, New No. 54, Thambiah Street, West Mambalam, Chennai was allotted to the plaintiff and his brother Thiru J.S. Sridharan/first respondent in O.P. No. 136/2008. Smt. Indhira Rajamani/second respondent in O.P. No. 136 of 2008 is the daughter of the testatrix. Respondents 3 and 4 in O.P. No. 136 of 2008/Defendants 1 and 2 in T.O.S. No. 30 of 2008 are the children born to the pre-deceased daughter of the testatrix. The testatrix wanted the executor to sell the jewels after her death and to apportion the sale amount among the plaintiff, Thiru J.S. Sridharan, Smt. Indhira Rajamani and defendants 1 and 2 equally. The testatrix died on 24 January 2001. The plaintiff long thereafter filed Original Petition with a prayer to grant probate of the Will.

2. The respondents 3 and 4 in O.P. No. 136 of 2008 (who are the defendants herein) contested the Will resulting in converting the Original Petition into one of Testamentary Original Suit. Defence.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing the execution of the Will. According to the first defendant, the testatrix was not in a sound and disposing state of mind while executing the Will. The Original Petition for grant of probate was filed long after the period of limitation. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff fabricated the Will to grab the property from the legal representatives of Smt. Rajam Sarangachari, who died intestate on 24 January 2001.

Issues:

4. This Court taking into account the pleadings framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the Will executed by the deceased Tmt. Rajam Sarangachari on 28 February 1991 is true, genuine and valid?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of probate?

(iii) Whether the defendants have locus-standi to oppose the grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff?

(iv) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

The Evidence:

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. The attesting witness Thiru R. Lakshmi Narayanan was examined as P.W. 2. The first defendant was examined as D.W. 1. Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs.

6. The plaintiff in his evidence deposed that even though the Will was executed on 28 February 1991 and his mother died on 24 January 2001, he found the Will only in 2006. According to P.W. 1, taking into account the last wishes of the testatrix, jewels were sold and the proportionate amount at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- was given to his sisters and the father of the defendants as per Exs. P. 2, P. 3 and P.4. P.W. 1 denied the contention regarding fabrication of Will.

7. P.W. 2 Thiru R. Lakshmi Narayanan in his evidence deposed that he took the notary with him to the house of the testatrix. He was known to the husband of the testatrix as both worked together in the very same establishment. The Advocate/Notary took instructions on the first day and Will was drafted subsequently. The Will was executed on 28 February 1991. The testatrix signed the Will at the first instance. Thereafter notary public signed. P.W. 2 and the other witness Balu, who was working under the Notary signed thereafter. P.W. 2 admitted that he was running a type-writing institute at Thandapani Street and that he was also a short-hand writer. P.W. 2 denied the suggestion that the testatrix did no