JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The Original Petition in OP No. 153 of 2016 seeking Letters of Administration along with a copy of the Will annexed for the last Will and testament of late S. Geetha dated 14.08.2015, has been converted into a Testamentary Original Suit, upon caveat filed by the respondent, who is the husband of the testator/father of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows:

The testator S. Geetha was possessed two residential apartments, which were settled down to her by her mother at the time of her death on 18.08.2015. She died at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. According to the petitioner, she had executed a Will on 14.08.2015, while undergoing treatment at the Hospital, bequeathing the said two residential apartments in favour of the legatee/petitioner, who happens to be her only son. Though the said S. Geetha was literate knowing to sign she affixed her thumb impression, since she was unable to subscribe her signature to the Will. The Will was duly executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, T.R. Srinivasan and B. Siva Kumar. The second attesting witness B. Sivakumar, happens to be a sister's husband of the testator. A certificate issued by the Doctor, who treated her was also produced along with Original Petition to show that she was unfit to travel and put her signature.

3. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is resisted by the defendant/respondent contending that his relationship with his in-laws was not cordial and they were always ill-advising his wife. It is further contended that the deceased was not in a good state of mind during her stay in the hospital and she was not capable of executing a Will. It is also claimed that the stamp papers used for the Will were purchased from the stamp vendor without name and the stamp papers purchased for some other purpose were used for creating the Will. The testatrix was not in a conscious state of mind, even to affix her signature, which would show that her mental abilities were not in good order so that it could be presumed that she knew the contents of the Will before its execution. It is also claimed that the person who drafted the Will and the attesting witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased and they were indirect beneficiaries.

4. It is also claimed that the very existence of the respondent/husband is not disclosed in the Will. It is the further case of the respondent that though the Will is said to bear left thumb impression of the testator, it is actually the right thumb impression, which has been affixed in the Will. Therefore, according to the respondent, the will has been brought about under very suspicious circumstances and in the absence of any reason assigned by the testator to disinherit him the Will cannot be said to have been executed by the testator with the knowledge of the contents of the documents.

5. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed in the Testamentary Original Suit:

1. Whether the will dated 14.08.2015 executed by S. Geetha, mother of the plaintiff and wife of the defendant, was executed out of her consent and in healthy mental capacity?

2. Whether the Will suffered any infirmity, since thumb impression was put and she had not signed the Will?

3. Whether non registration of Will affected the genuineness of the Will?

4. Whether the Will had been executed and attested in proper form?

5. Whether disinheritance of the defendant, namely, husband of the testatrix shows that the Will had been prepared and undue influence had been exerted?

6. Whether the Will is proved in accordance with law?

7. What reliefs are parties entitled to?

6. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked. One of the attesting witnesses Mr. B. Sivakumar was examined as P.W. 2. The defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and Exhibits P7 to P9 were marked during his cross-examination. The defendant has produced Exhibits D1 to D6.

7. I ha