The court affirmed that a registered Will is presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, and mere disinheritance does not imply undue influence.

JUDGMENT :

The Testamentary Original Suit arises out of Original Petition in OP. No.1178 of 2018 filed by the plaintiffs as petitioners, seeking grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of late, M.R.Ramachandran, dated 02.01.2004. The respondents in the said OP having filed Caveat, the OP was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit and the respondents have been cited as the defendants in the Testamentary Original Suit.

2. Alleging that late M.R.Ramachandran died intestate, the suit in OS No.435 of 2018 before IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai was filed by the defendants in TOS, as plaintiffs therein, seeking partition and separate possession. In furtherance of orders of this Court, the said suit for partition was transferred to this Court and tried along with the above Testamentary Original Suit in Tr.C.S. No.14 of 2023.

3. The averments set out in the Testamentary Original Suit viz., the petition/plaint are as follows.

The plaintiffs are the daughter, son and daughter respectively of late M.R.Ramachandran and Vallabaisundari, their mother pre-deceased their father, having died on 01.03.1998. The father died on 21.04.2016, leaving a registered Will dated 02.01.2004, registered as document No.03 of 2004 in Book No.3 at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Sembiam, in the presence of two witnesses.

4. According to the plaintiffs, they were named as executors in the said Will and the property of deceased M.R.Ramachandran, has been bequeathed to the grandchildren viz., 1) M.V.Vallaba Narayanan and 2) M.V.Pandurangan, the sons of the second plaintiff alone, equally. The Will was found only while cleaning the house and hence, there was a delay in approaching the Court for grant of probate. The defendants are none other than their brothers. Contending that the Will was duly executed in accordance with law, the plaintiffs sought for grant of probate.

5. The gist of the written statement filed by the defendants:

The defendants do not deny the relationship between the parties. However, according to the defendants, the alleged Will dated 02.01.2004 is not true and genuine and not executed by their father while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The case of the defendants is that the father was affectionate to all the children alike and he would have never executed the Will in favour of one son's children alone, disinheriting the rest of his sons and daughters. It is also stated that all the legal heirs have jointly submitted declarations and executed documents and collected the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of their father in State Bank of India, Jawahar Nagar Branch, where the plaintiffs as well as defendants have declared that their father died intestate and did not leave any Will.

6. Further, it is also contended that the father borrowed monies for performing the marriage of the third plaintiff and for such purpose, he had mortgaged the property with Kilpauk Benefit Society on 08.05.2003 and the same was duly discharged on 07.07.2009, for which payments have made by the defendants. There was cordial relationship until such the father died and only thereafter, disputes arose. When a police complaint was given by the second defendant, during such enquiry, the second plaintiff claimed that the father had executed a Will. This was in June 2017 and till such time there was absolutely no whisper about the alleged Will, though the Will was said to have been executed way back in 2004 and his father was also alive till 2016.

7. According to the defendants, the witnesses to the alleged Will are stock witnesses and the Testator was well versed in English and he would not have executed his Will in Tamil and it is also stated that the Scribe of the Will, One C.Masilamani, is an Advocate, who is none else than the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and the Will is the creation of the said Advocate, along with the plaintiffs 1 & 2. It is also stated that the second defendant was living in the subject propert