The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the genuineness and validity of a Will, dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, and ensure the testator's sound state of mind at the time of execution.

The Original Petition has been originally filed for grant of Letters of Administration based on the Will dated 22.02.2001 executed by one Mr. M. Arumugam, thereafter, converted as a suit in view of the contest by the defendants.

2. The plaintiff is daughter of one Mr. M. Arumugam who died on 26.03.2001 at Chennai, leaving behind the Will dated 22.02.2001. All the five children of the deceased are the beneficiaries under the Will. Hence the plaintiff, being one of the beneficiaries, undertakes to administer the property and credits of the said deceased Mr. M. Arumugam by paying first his debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court.

3. It is the contention of the contesting defendant that the alleged Will dated 22.2.2001 is a fabricated one by playing fraud. The suit property was acquired by the father of the defendants. He died leaving behind 4 sons namely Mr. A. Deenadayalan, Mr. Ramakrishanan, Mr. A. Gnanamani and Mr. A. Venugopal (defendants herein) and one daughter by name Tmt. S. Devaki (plaintiff herein). The father has left a registered Will dated 26.10.1994 allotting different portion to each of the legal heirs. As per the above Will, all the legal heirs were enjoying the properties absolutely after mutating them in their respective names in all the public records. The plaintiff who has been living with her husband at different places, at last came to live at No.4, Jayalakshmipuram 4thStreet, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. After the death of her father, the property described in Schedule 'E' to the Will dated 26.10.1994 was allotted to her with the property of her husband having entrance from Jayalakshmipuram 4th Street, Chennai-34. The plaintiff has not been given any of usage over the pathway existing in Old Door No.4, New Door No.7, ChokkattanSalai, Chennai-34, which exclusively meant for the 4th defendant.

In the alleged Will dated 22.2.2011 thumb impression has been affixed purporting to be that of Arumugha Naicker. There is no reason assigned in the petition why the thumb impression was affixed. It is the further contention of the defendants that from March 2000 the testator was mentally unsound due to old age and was suffering from senility and lost mobility totally. Hence, he could not have written the alleged Will dated 22.02.2001. The said Will got registered, by playing fraud in order to claim right over the above said exclusive pathway of the defendant.

4. Based on the above, the following issues are framed for consideration:

1. Whether the Last Will and Testament of the Testator dated 22.02.2001 is genuine and valid?

2. Whether the defendants herein are entitled to set up a defence by citing the alleged Will of the year 1994 of the testator, since the same may be revoked by virtue of the Later Will?

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

5. On the side of the plaintiff two witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that though the testator has left the Will in the year 1994, before his death he subsequently executed another registered Will thereby the earlier Will has been revoked and P.W.2 one of the attesting witnesses has clearly spoken about the execution and registration of the Will. Though there are two wills executed by the testator, the last will alone prevail and the testator executed the last will in the sound state of mind and out of his own free will and volition and the same has been proved through the attesting witnesses. Hence, the execution of the Will is proved in the manner known to law and the plaintiff is entitled for Letters of Administration.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that admittedly the testator has executed the will in the year 1994 itself bequeathing specific portion of