The main legal point established in the judgment is that the satisfaction of the requirements under the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, including the execution and attestation of the Will, is crucial in granting probate.

This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, with respect to last Will and Testament dated, 10.5.1996, of B. Venugopal Naidu, who had died on 1.6.2004 at No. 33, Hyder Garden, 3rd Street, Perambur, Chennai-12.

2. Originally, OP.No.421 of 2013 was filed, seeking probate of the last Will and Testament dated 10.5.1996 of B. Venugopal Naidu. The petition was filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Order 25 Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules.

3. The Petitioner, V. Dayalan, was the son of the said B.Venugopal Naidu. There were five Respondents in OP.No.421 of 2013. The 1st Respondent, V.Thayarammal was the wife of the B.Venugopal Naidu. The 2nd Respondent, V.Kasthuri, the 3rd Respondent, V.Jothi and the 5th Respondent, V.Lakshmi are the daughters of B.Venugopal Naidu and the 4th Respondent V.Pragasam was the son of B.Venugopal Naidu. This court had directed issue of notice in the said Original Petition and the 2nd Respondent, V.Kasthuri, the 3rd Respondent, V.Jothi and the 5th Respondent, V.Lakshmi registered their protest by filing a caveat and also an affidavit in support of the caveat opposing grant of probate in favour of the Petitioner. Consequently, this court by order dated, 8/8/2014, had directed that OP.No.421 of 2013 must be converted into a testamentary and original suit and accordingly, it was converted and renumbered as TOS.No.28 of 2014.

4. The Petitioner in OP.No.421 of 2013, V.Dayalan became termed as the Plaintiff and the Respondents 2, 3 and 5 were termed as the Defendants. It must also be mentioned that pending the proceedings, the 1st Respondent in the OP, V.Thayarammal also died, but, since her legal representatives were already on record, there was no necessity to carry out any amendment or to implead any new parties to the suit.

5. In the petition, seeking grant of probate, it has been stated that late B.Venugopal Naidu died on 1.6.2004 and he had executed a Will dated 10.5.1996. It has been further stated that the Will had attested by two witnesses, T.Sundararaj, son of G.Thiruvengadam and S.Jayapaul, son of Subramani. It has been further stated that under the Will, B.Venugopal Naidu bequeathed his properties to his two sons, namely, V.Dayalan and the 4th Respondent, V.Pragasam. It has been further stated that in the Will, the testator had clearly indicated that his three daughters, who had entered appearance, who had objected grant of probate and who are termed as the Defendants, had been given in marriage in the respectable families and they are living with their husbands and families. It has also been stated that the property covered under the Will was his self-acquired property. It was further stated that he had given to the Plaintiff, V.Dayalan, the B-Schedule property for long lease for 50 years and had already put him in possession. He thereafter bequeathed the B-Schedule property to the Petitioner and bequeathed the C-Schedule property in the Will to V.Pragasam. The 1st Respondent, V.Thayarammal in the OP was given a life interest in the property without powers of alienation or encumbrance. The Petitioner was appointed as the executor. It had also been stated that the Respondents 1 and 4 had given consent affidavits. It was only after the 1st Respondent gave consent, the petition seeking probate had been filed. It has been stated that consequently, there was a delay in filing the petition, seeking probate.

6. As stated above, the Respondents 2, 3 and 5 had filed their caveat. They also filed their written statement. In the written statement, they have stated that the date of Will was 10.5.1996, the testator died on 1.6.2004 and the petition seeking probate had been filed on 21.2.2013 after nearly 9 years. It has therefore been stated that no specific explanation had been granted for the delay in filing the application seeking probate. It has been further stated that the testator was also alive for more than 8 years after the execution of the Will and durin