JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

Prayer:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgement and decree dated 20.12.2016 made in T.O.S.No.97 of 2015 (O.P.No.485 of 2013).

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in T.O.S.No.97 of 2015 (O.P.No.485 of 2013) are the appellants before this Court.

2. The appellants as petitioners, filed O.P.No.485 of 2013, seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will of Late Dharmambal @ Pattamal, dated 06.03.2005, registered as Doc.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai South, annexed. Caveat was filed by the daughter of the deceased Dharmambal @ Pattamal, intending to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration as prayed for by the appellants and consequently the O.P proceedings stood converted into a Testamentary Suit and the petitioners became the plaintiffs in the Testamentary Original Suit and the Caveator, the 1st respondent in the O.P became the sole defendant in the Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.97 of 2015.

3. The facts admitted as between the parties are as hereunder:

(1) Late Dharmambal @ Pattamal was the sister of Mr.Ganesan, who is none else than the father of the appellants herein.

(2) The respondents in the Original Petition are the daughter of Late Dharmambal @ Pattamal and mother of the appellants respectively.

(3) Dharmambal @ Pattamal died on 27.07.2009.

4. The parties have no dispute with regard to relationship amongst themselves. It is the case of the appellants that the property which is the subject matter of the registered Will dated 06.03.2005 was actually purchased only by their father Mr.Ganesan, in the name of his only sister, the testatrix i.e., Dharmambal @ Pattammal. Only acknowledging and recognizing the fact that the testatrix was only holding the property as a benami for her brother, the Will came to be executed by the testatrix. It is the further case of the appellants that even the loan obtained for meeting a portion of the sale consideration was met only by their father Ganesan and the testatrix was not even possessed of sufficient funds to either purchase the property or service the loan.

5. It is also stated that the father of the appellants who was the sole beneficiary under the Will and recognizing the right and title flowing to him under the Will, executed a settlement deed on 20.11.2009 vide registered Doc.No.2193 of 2009, thereby settling the subject property in favour of the appellants, his daughters. The appellants have explained the delay in approaching the Court at para 10 of the petition stating that the original Will was not immediately available with them.

6. The respondent herein as defendant, filed a written statement denying even knowledge of execution of the Will dated 06.03.2005 and contending that the subject property was owned only by the mother of the respondent herein and infact her brother, late Ganesan, father of the appellants was paying nominal rent to the testatrix till her demise in July, 2009. It is further contended that the appellants' father was permitted to stay in the premises only because of convenience and safety issues. However, it is contended by the respondent that the brother of the deceased testatrix used to pick up quarrel with his sister, i.e the testatrix and had even threatened her before her death stating that he had with him signed blank papers of the testatrix, which were according to the respondent obtained under coercion and threat. The respondent further contended that the factum of execution of the Will itself came to her knowledge only after receiving summons from the High Court and that late Ganesan, who was working as a Sub-Registrar, took advantage of his position and brought about the settlement deed in favour of his daughters, the appellants herein, without even obtaining Probate of the Will of her mother. In short, the specific defence set up by the respondent was that the Will was false, fabricated