N. Sathish Kumar, J.

The petitions originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration have been converted as suits in view of the caveat filed by the respective defendants therein.

2. Since the subject matter of both the Will relates to the same properties and parties are one and the same, common judgment is being passed. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been culled out from testamentary Suit No.6 of 2005.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiff, the testatrix died on 30.05.1998 leaving Last Will and Testament, which was duly executed by her on 27.12.1993, in the presence of two witnesses. The plaintiff is one of the beneficiaries under the Will. In the Will, the deceased bequeathed her immovable property, namely, House property, situate in Royapettah, Chennai, in favour of her daughters and grand son. Similarly, the deceased bequeathed the other property, situate in Chella Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai, to V.Pandarinatha Rao and V.Ashok kumar, which does not belong to the testator at all.

(ii) The amount of assets which is likely to come into the plaintiff's hands does not exceed the aggregate sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the net amount of the said assets is Rs.1,49,000/-. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the deceased in any way concerned in the Will by paying first her debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same to the Court within six months from the date of grant of Letters of Administration, with the Will annexed and also to tender to this court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. The plaintiff also submits that no application has been made to any other District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for probate or Letters of Administration with or without the Will annexed to the property and credits. Hence, the suit is filed for grant of Letters of Administration.

4. The brief facts of the defendant's case are as follows:

According to the defendant, the suit is not maintainable as the deceased Bali Bai died on 30.5.1998 and not on 29.5.1998 as stated in the plaint. It is stated that as per the Will, the defendant's elder brother was in possession and enjoyment of the first item of the property and the defendant herein was in possession and enjoyment of the second item of property. It is further stated that in the year 1993, the deceased was not in conscious mind and she had a poor eye sight and that, the plaintiff and other daughters of the deceased with the help of their husband, had created the alleged Will by forging the signature of the deceased. If really she executed the Will, she would have mentioned about the Will dated 25.09.1969 and cancelled the same, which clearly shows that the Will was created by the plaintiff and other daughters by forging the signature of the deceased for their personal gain. Therefore, according to the defendant, the Will dated is not valid in law and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The following issues are framed by this Court in TOS. No. 6 of 2005 as well as in TOS. No.14 of 2011: -

1. Whether the Wills dated 27.12.1993 and 25.9.1969 respectively are the last Will and Testament of the Testatrix, Late E.Bali Bai?

2. Whether the Will dated 27.12.1993 and 25.09.1969 were executed by Late Bali Bai when she was in sound and disposing state of mind?

3. To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?

6. Since the subject matter of both the Will relate to the same properties and the parties are the legal heirs of one Balibai, the testatrix, a joint trial was conducted in both the suits and common evidence was recorded. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side