The Testamentary Suit in T.O.S.No.1 of 2016 and the Second Appeal in 359 of 2014 were tried together since the subject matter of the property in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.359 of 2014 is the subject matter of the Will, which is the main issue in T.O.S.No.1 of 2016.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit in T.O.S.No.1 of 2016 is as follows :

The petitioner is the son of one G.Ramasamy, who died on 16.02.2001. Though the father of the plaintiff left the Will in the year 2001, the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that Letters of Administration had to be obtained. Only when the defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.4366 of 2008 for partition of the suit property before the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff approached the counsel and handed over the Will to file an application for Letters of Administration. However, the erstwhile counsel misplaced the original Will in his office and was not able to trace the same. Since the plaintiff was requesting the erstwhile counsel, he has presented O.P.SR.No.3559 of 2010. Thereafter, again his erstwhile counsel lost the case bundle. Therefore, the present Original Petition has been filed. Thereafter, the same has been converted into a suit after caveat has been filed by the defendant herein.

3. The defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendant that there was no Will. If there had been a Will, the plaintiff would have changed the name in Property Tax and other documents. Even during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the plaintiff had not produced the original Will and taken a contrary statement in the affidavit before the appellate Court and he has taken a contrary view with regard to the Will. The reasons assigned in the petition for delay in filing Letters of Administration is contrary to the stand taken before the trial Court in the suit. It is the contention of the defendant that if there had been a Will, he would have changed his name in the properties. Therefore, the Will is nothing but a forged one.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were famed by this Court :

1. Whether the Will dated 13.12.200 is executed by G.Ramasamy is true and genuine?

2. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled?

5. The Original Suit in O.S.No.4366 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff in testamentary suit for partition claiming half share in the property left by her father. The suit has been decreed. The appeal filed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.352 of 2010 was also dismissed, as against which the present second appeal has been filed. The suit and the appeal were dismissed on the ground that the Original Will had not been produced and proved.

6. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed :

1. Whether the Courts below are justified in re-writing the last wish of the deceased G.Ramasamy expressed by him in his Last Will and Testatment dated 13.12.2000 executed by him?

2. Whether the Courts below are justified in refusing to rely on a copy of the Will dated 13.12.2000, when the appellant had filed the original of the same in probate proceedings?

7. Since the issue in the Second Appeal as well as in the testamentary suit relate to the property of one G.Ramasamy, both the matters were clubbed together for disposal.

8. We proceed with T.O.S.1 of 2016. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the Will left by G.Ramasamy gave life interest to his wife and also to the plaintiff and thereafter vested remainder to his son. Merely because an application for Letters of Administration has not been filed, within the period of three years, it cannot be said that there is no Will at all.

9. As per the Original Side Rules, when an application is filed beyond three years, for grant of Letters of Administration, sufficient reason has to be given for the delay, by the party to file such application. In this case, the plaintiff has clearly averred the circumstanc