JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, r/w under Order 43 Rule 1(a) and Section 104 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order and Decree dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in Probate O.P.No.1 of 2005.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Trial Court granting probate of the Wills in O.P.No.1 of 2005 dated 07.07.2010.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the civil miscellaneous appeal could be summarized as under :-

The respondents herein, who were the petitioners before the trial court, preferred the original petition for probate of two wills, one unregistered Willand another registered Will purportedly executed by one Adhilakshmi and M.V.Mannar Reddiyar. On 30.01.1995 and 10.12.1998.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners before the trial court that while the petitioners are daughter-in-law and grandsons of the testators, viz., Adhilakshmi and M.V.Mannar Reddiyar, the 1st petitioner having married the elder son of the testators, viz., V.M.Chandrasekaran, since deceased, the respondents are the daughter, 2nd son and grandson of the testators. Incidentally, the 3rd respondent before the trial court is the grandson of not only the testators, but also the grandson of the 1st respondent and the son of the 2nd respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioners before the probate court that testator, Adhilakshmi was the absolute owner of the properties described in “A”, “B” and “C” Schedule properties, which the testator inherited through purchase and family partition and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the same in her lifetime. During her lifetime, while in a sound and disposing state of mind and without any coercion, with a view to equally give a share of the property to her sons, bequeathed “A” schedule property in favour of her eldest son, Chandrasekaran, since deceased, while “B” schedule property was bequeathed in favour of her younger son, Sivakumar, viz., the 2nd respondent herein. Insofar as “C” schedule property is concerned, the same was bequeathed in equal share to both Chandrasekaran and Sivakumar. The movable properties were also bequeathed in equal share to her sons, mentioned above.

5. The daughter of the testator, viz., 1st respondent herein, was not given any share either in the movable or immovable properties, mention having been made in the Will that her daughter, the 1st respondent, was sufficiently provided for during her marriage.

6. Insofar as the registered Will of M.V. Mannar Reddiyar is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that the said Mannar Reddiyar is the absolute owner of “D” and “E” Schedule properties. The said Mannar Reddiyar, while in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed a registered Will dated 10.12.1998, bequeathing the properties to his grandsons, born to his first and second sons, viz., Chandrasekaran and Sivakumar.

7. Subsequent to the demise of Adhilakshmi on 14.08.1995 and Mannar Reddiyar on 08.08.2000, the Wills came into effect.

8. It is the further stand of the petitioners that the respondents, suppressing the above facts, have filed O.S.No.387 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Poonamallee claiming share in the properties left by the said Adhilakshmiammal and Mannar Reddiyar. The said action of the respondents have prompted the petitioners to file the present petition for probate of the above Wills.

9. The above stand of the petitioners was controverted by the respondents submitting that the Wills dated 30.01.1995 and 10.12.1998 were not executed by Adhilakshmiammal and Mannar Reddiyar as averred by the petitioners, but for the hand of the 1st petitioner’s husband, who has taken the signatures of Adhilakshmiammal in blank papers and has created the Will, which would be evident on a cursory perusal of the Will. It is the further stand of the respondents that the properties mentioned in ‘D’ sche