The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of caution in probate proceedings, the need to assess the credibility of suspicions raised by interested parties, and the lack of unexplained suspicious circumstances warranting denial of probate.

The Executor, originally filed original petition in O.P.No.481 of 2006 to grant probate of the Will dated 03.11.2005 executed by the testatrix G.Vimala. The husband of the testatrix was shown as the respondent. As caveat was filed by him, the original petition was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit by order of this Court dated 06.07.2007.

2. The deceased Vimala, who is the testatrix, was a resident of Madras and that she possessed all properties, within the State of Tamil Nadu. She had executed the Will on 03.11.2005. She was married to the first defendant and that they had no children. The parents of the testatrix also pre-deceased her. The testatrix had a strained relationship with the first defendant/husband. Therefore, it is stated that she had made a bequest only towards charities, appointing the plaintiff as an Executor. Hence the plaintiff has sought for a probate.

3. After the original petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit, the first defendant filed his written statement on 08.10.2007. After the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over, the learned counsel for the first defendant had made an endorsement to the effect that there is no evidence on the side of the defendant. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. Subsequently, the first defendant died on 12.06.2010. Therefore, the second defendant, who is the son of the deceased first defendant, through his first wife, is brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased first defendant. The third defendant, who claims to be the wife of the first defendant was impleaded subsequently.

4. The first defendant had stated that the testatrix died out of complications arising out of colon cancer on 09.11.2005 at the Chennai Kaliappa Hospital. Though she was diagnosed of cancer in the year 2002, the onset of secondaries, resulted in her death. The first defendant further stated that even as early as in the year 2004, the testatrix suffered loss of memory as a consequence of the side effects of Chemotherapy and radiation. The first defendant also had stated that there were legal proceedings between the testatrix and himself before the Family Court, Chennai. The deceased had preferred O.P.No.501 of 2003 before the Family Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed, after her death, as abated. It is alleged by the first defendant that as the testatrix was admitted in an Intensive Care, she could not have executed the alleged Will.

5. The first defendant further denied the cause of action of the Will and also the affidavit of the attesting witnesses filed along with the original petition. The first defendant also had stated that he was not informed of the death of the testatrix and he did not have knowledge till such time, he got to know of the same through newspaper. According to him, as the testatrix was under heavy medication and sedation, the Will has been obtained without her free will and volition. Though the deceased died on 09.11.2005, the original petition seeking probate was filed only on 10.04.2006 and the same was numbered much later and no notice was sent to him. After the death of the testatrix, the first defendant had sold the property bearing Door No.46/5, Kotturpuram, Chennai on 05.02.2007.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the impugned Will dated 3.11.2005 said to have been executed by late Mrs.G.Vimala is a true and genuine one?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of probate of the impugned Will dated 03.11.2005 said to have been executed by late Mrs.G.Vimala as prayed for?

3. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, no oral evidence was let in and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked through the plaintiff s witness.

8. On a perusal of the Will of the testatrix dated 03.11.2005, it is seen that the Will has been attested by two witnesses, viz., K.Balasubra