The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendant herein.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case may be stated as follows:

The plaintiffs are the daughters of Ganesan, who is the brother of one Pattammal, who is the testatrix. The said Pattammal left a Will dated 6.3.2005 bequeathing the suit property in favour of her brother Ganesan. The suit property was purchased in the name of said Pattammal, who is the binami of her brother Ganesan. The beneficiary Ganesan was in fact paying taxes to the suit property from the date of its purchase, in the name of Pattammal. During the life time of the said Ganesan, he has executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 20.11.2009. After that, he died on 9.4.2010, leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs. As the original Will was not immediately available, the Letters of Administration could not be obtained earlier. Hence the suit is filed for grant of Letters of Administration for administering the property covered under the Will of Pattammal.

3. The sole defendant, denying the allegations contained in the plaint, submitted that the suit property was purchased by her mother Pattammal out of her own funds received from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property. The defendant is not aware of the execution of the alleged Will dated 6.3.2005. The allegation that Ganesan purchased the suit property out of his own income is also denied. The said Ganesan being the maternal Uncle of the defendant used to quarrel with the defendant's mother and used to bring all sorts of threat and used to obtain blank signature not only from the mother of the defendant, but also the defendant. Since the defendant and her mother have no support of any male member in their family to protect the harassment made by the said Ganesan, they do not prefer any police complaint against him, keeping in mind the dignity of their family in mind. The said Ganesan was the Sub Registrar. By using his official influence in the Department, he has got out the Will. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs have no right to file an application for Letters of Administration. As the original beneficiary has not filed any application for grant of probate or letters of administration during his life time, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

(i) Whether the Will dated 6.3.2005 stated to have been executed by Tmt.Dharmambal alias Pattammal is genuine and valid?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed?

(iii) Relief and cost.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that Ex.A.1, the Will dated 6.3.2005 is the registered one and the signature of the testatrix is also clearly established and the second plaintiff and the defendant are the attesting witnesses in the above Will. The second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. She has categorically stated about the signature of the testatrix and also the attestation. D.W.1 in the cross-examination also has not denied the signature of the testatrix in the Will. In fact, she has admitted the Will executed by Pattammal. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the allegation of fraud, undue influence and coercion, as set out in the written statement, has not been established. The burden to establish the said allegation by the defendant is not discharged and no suspicious circumstances, whatsoever pleaded as to the Will, are available in the present case. In the absence of any suspicious circumstances, the genuinity of the Will is proved and therefore the registered Will has to be given credence and it has to be admitted. The testatrix died after four years of the execution of the Will. These facts clearly establish that the Will has been left by the said Testatrix, namely Pattammal. It is the further contention of