1. O.P. No. 434 of 2008 had been filed, seeking grant of probate under Sections 222 & 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, read with Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, Madras, with respect to what was termed as the Last Will and Testament of S. Parasmal Jain, who died on 11.08.1986 at Guest Hospital, Chennai.

2. The petitioner, G. Paras Singh Munoth, was the brother-in-law of the Testator. He had been appointed as the Executor, in what was said to be the Will of S. Parasmal Jain and which was dated 14.07.1986 and which was registered as Document No. 91 of 1986 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, N.J. Hyderabad. The Testator was taking treatment as an inpatient in a hospital at Hyderabad at that particular point of time. The respondent in the Original Petition, Mrs. Gyanlatha, was the wife of S. Parasmal Jain, the Testator.

3. In the petition seeking grant of probate, it had been stated that S. Parasmal Jain had executed the Will in the presence of two witnesses and that the petitioner had been appointed as the Executor.

4. The petition seeking grant of probate was filed in the year 2007. S. Parasmal Jain died on 11.08.1986. The reason for the delay in filing the application seeking probate had not been explained in the petition.

5. The respondent Mrs. Gyanlatha objected to the grant of probate and consequently, O.P. No. 434 of 2008 was converted into a Testamentary and Original Suit and renumbered as T.O.S. No. 12 of 2009.

6. Mrs. Gyanlatha had then filed her written statement. Necessity for the defendant Mrs. Gyanlatha to file the written statement and to challenge grant of probate was that under the Will, S. Parasmal Jain had granted only life interest to her with right to reside in the property which he bequeathed, namely, landed property at No. 21, Race Course Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 and that, after her, the property shall devolve on to the sons of his younger brother, who had predeceased him. The ratio of division of the property among the four sons was also given.

7. In the written statement, Mrs. Gyanlatha put up a new fact stating that a subsequent Will dated 07.08.1986 had been executed by S. Parasmal Jain. However, she admitted that S. Parasmal Jain had executed the Will dated 14.07.1986. She claimed that the said Will was revoked by execution of the subsequent Will on 07.08.1986. She further alleged mala-fide on the part of the executor/plaintiff and claimed that he had joined hands with the beneficiaries, namely, the sons of the deceased brother of S. Parasmal Jain, with mutual aim to benefit from the estate, which was property at No. 21, Race Course Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. It had been stated that a notice was also issued by the said beneficiaries on 06.06.2007. It had been specifically stated that the Testator had handed over to the executor/plaintiff, the original Will dated 14.07.1986. However, he did not take any steps to obtain probate of the Will for 22 years. The reason attributed by her was that the executor knew that there was a subsequent Will dated 07.08.1986. Mrs. Gyanlatha further stated in her written statement that S. Parasmal Jain had been admitted in the Guest Hospital, Ponnamallee High Road, Chennai, after his return from Hyderabad. Both his kidneys had failed and he had to undergo Dialysis. He was intermittently having concisions owing to low blood pressure. She further claimed that considering her dissatisfaction at being granted only life interest in the property, S. Parasmal Jain had executed a subsequent Will on 07.08.1986 giving absolute right to her and further providing that after her life time, the property shall be owned and possessed by the beneficiaries, who had been named in the Will dated 14.07.1986, namely, the sons of his pre-deceased brother. S. Parasmal Jain died on 11.08.1986. She further stated additional facts pertaining to issues, which happened subsequently, namely the encumbrances created over the property. She stated that