S. Vimala, J.

1. "One has ever made an a-contextual statement. There is always some context to any utterance, however meager", said Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd., 2005 (1) All ER 667. Whether the Second Respondent has established sufficient context, for the Testator to speak through the Will, thereby disinheriting his wife and bequeathing the same in favour of a Service Organization, is the issue to be decided.

2. The Petitioner filed a Petition in O.P. No. 695 of 2003 seeking Probate of the Will dated 18.9.1996.

3. The First Defendant is the beneficiary under the Will and the Second Defendant is the wife of the Testator and also the brother's wife of the Petitioner. The Second Defendant would have been the natural heir, who would have inherited the property, but for the Will. The First Defendant did not contest the Suit. On the Second Defendant choosing to contest the validity of the Will, O.P. No. 695 of 2003 was converted into T.O.S. No. 36 of 2004.

Brief/acts:

4. The husband of the Second Defendant became the Owner of the property, by virtue of the Settlement Deed, dated 25.5.1968, executed by his paternal aunt's husband. Accepting and acting upon the Settlement Deed, the Second Defendant's husband was enjoying the property in his own right as the owner of the property. On the demise of her husband, the Second Defendant is the person entitled to inherit the property, as a Class I Heir, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Depriving the right of inheritance, the husband of the Second Defendant is stated to have executed a Will, dated 18.9.1996, of which the First Defendant is the beneficiary and the Plaintiff is the Executrix.

5. The following issues have been framed for trial:

"(i) Whether the deceased K. Deekaram was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will?

(ii) Whether the signatures of the deceased K. Deekaram were forged in the Will?

(iii) Whether the Plaintiff has played a vital role in making the 2nd Defendant to disinherit him out of hatred and enmity?

(iv) Whether the Will reportedly executed by the deceased K. Deekaram on 18.9.1996 is true, genuine, valid and binding?"

6. On the side of the Plaintiff, Executrix has been examined as P.W. 1 and the attesting witness has been examined as PW2. Original Will of the Testator (Ex. Pl) and the Death Certificate of the Testator (Ex. P2) are the documents filed on the side of the Plaintiff.

7. On the side of the Defendants, the Second Defendant has been examined as D.W. 1 and Ex. Dl to D16 have been marked.

8. According to the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the evidence adduced on the part of the Plaintiff has established that the Will is duly executed, validly attested and it is free from any suspicious circumstances and therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of Probate.

8.1. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement of legal proof, in accordance with the mandate of the decisions reported in Surendra Pal and Others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and another, AIR 1974 SC 1999 : 1997 (2) Crimes (SC) 443, and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of Probate. In the said decision, it has been held as follows:

"All the formalities required for Execution of the Will were fully satisfied and it was executed by the Testator in a sound disposing mind and it was duly attested as required by law; therefore, failure of Caveator to prove the undue influence as alleged by him in execution of the Will by the Testator in favour of his newly wedded wife; it was held that Will was genuine."

8.2. The said legal proposition cannot be disputed. Whether the legal position finds the bedrock on the facts of this case, is the issue.

9. The Propounder of the Will is required to prove that the Testator has signed the Will and that he had put the signature out of his own free will having a sound disposing state of mind and after understanding the natu