C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The 1st plaintiff Kalavathy (deceased) originally filed O.P. No. 203 of 2004 seeking an order to grant Letters of Administration with respect to the last Will and testamentary of T. Saravana Perumal, who had died on 16.10.2002, at Chennai.

2. According to the petitioner, T. Saravana Perumal had owned immovable property at Mylapore, Chennai. He had executed a Will on 11.12.1997. When he died, he did not leave behind any issues, his wife and parents pre-deceased him. The petitioner claimed to be the legatee under the Will, claiming that the Will had been executed in the presence of independent witnesses, who had also attested the same, this petition had been filed.

3. As stated above, Kalavathy died during the pendency of the proceedings and her legal representatives; C.N. Anbalagan, L. Anuradha and A. Sakunthala were brought on record. The grant of Letters of Administration was challenged by M.R. Sivasankaran, on application, the original petition was converted as T.O.S. No. 42 of 2004. In the written statement filed by M.R. Sivasankaran, he stated that he is the son of paternal uncle of original son Mrs. Rajheswari, who was the W/o T. Saravana Perumal. According to him, the Will has to be proved in the manner known to law.

4. He further stated that the Will had directed performance of two Charities. One religious Charity from the rental income, and no part of the income was given to Kalavathy and even the property was dedicated wholly to the Charity. It has been stated that Kalavathy is the first trustee, and she has to nominate a successor trustee. It had been stated that her legal representatives again continued the proceedings.

On the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the Will dated 01.12.1997 is true, valid and genuine?

2. Whether the probate proceedings are maintainable after the death of the first trustee, namely, the first plaintiff?

3. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The parties were invited to let in oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, on the side of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff C.N. Anbalagan was examined as PW-1, one of the attesting witnesses D. Loganathan was examined as PW-2 and N. Ramesh, the son of the other attesting witness C.S. Neelakantan was examined as PW-3. The defendant did not examine any witnesses.

6. The plaintiffs marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. Ex.P-1 is the original Will dated 11.12.1997. Ex.P-2, P-3 and P-4 are the death certificates of T. Saravana Perumal and Kalavathy and legal heirship Certificate of late Kalavathy. Ex.P-5 and P-6 are the signatures of C.S. Neelakantan found in the Will and identified in Court.

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. V. Manohar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the defendant.

8. Mr. V. Manohar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the course of his arguments pointed out that the original Will had been produced in Court, and that it had been proved in manner known to law by examining the attesting witnesses. He further stated that the stipulations set out in the Will can be executed only after letters of administration had been granted by the Court.

9. On the other hand, Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the defendant stated that the Kalavathy was not bequeathed with any property or income. According to him, the properties were bequeathed for charitable purposes, and there was an obligation to perform the charities and they have not been done. The learned counsel therefore, stated that the suit must be dismissed.

10. I have carefully considered the arguments advance by both the learned counsels.

Issue No. 1:

11. Ex.P-1 is the original Will dated 11.12.1997, executed by T. Saravana Perumal and the Will is in English. The testator described himself as T.S. Iyyer alias T. Saravana Perumal and he was aged 83 years. He claimed to be the owner of the house property bearing Door No. 5, Beemasena Garden Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600004. He had